This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Volatile MEMs in statement expressions and functions inlined as trees



On 13 Dec 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> | That flies in the face of the C++ standard itself, which was quoted in
> | this thread.
>
> That part only says what the *result* of the assignment is.  But it is
> *irrelevant* to say what the assignment operator expects the right
> operand to be.  There lies our disagreement.

Maybe there _is_ something I'm missing. What do you think that the quoted
C++ sentence about the "value of the assignment" actually means? I'm
saying that it fundamentally is the "algorithm" or "definition" to get the
rvalue out of the assignment expression, and you're right, we clearly do
seem to disagree on that point.

But if you do not think that it is the definition for the rvalue, then
what meaning _do_ you attribute to the sentence

	"The result of the assignment operation is the value stored in the
	 left operand after the assignment has taken place"

I'm saying that I read it as "result" == "rvalue" == "value of assignment
expression".

How do you read it?

		Linus


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]