public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/11633] g++ does not initialize structures when auto-increment variables are used
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:36:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030722233651.17805.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030722205341.11633.msimons@simons-clan.com>

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11633



------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2003-07-22 23:36 -------
Commas separating function call arguments are not sequence points, so
  foo(x++, x++)
can really be evaluated in different ways. On the other hand, commas in
comma expressions as in 
  while (x++, x++)
_are_ sequence points, so the order of evaluation is defined. The only question
which I can't answer from the standard is whether commas in initializer expressions
are sequence points.

If the order of evaluation is undefined, then the fact that some compilers implement
one way of doing things is not a reason to rely on a feature. Likewise,
random changes to the code _may_ make the code do what you expect, but
the code still triggers undefined behavior and may break again with
the next compiler version. The only way around this is to make the code
use only well defined semantics.

W.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-07-22 23:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-22 20:53 [Bug c++/11633] New: " msimons at simons-clan dot com
2003-07-22 20:55 ` [Bug c++/11633] " msimons at simons-clan dot com
2003-07-22 21:41 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2003-07-22 21:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2003-07-22 22:10 ` msimons at simons-clan dot com
2003-07-22 23:19 ` msimons at simons-clan dot com
2003-07-22 23:36 ` bangerth at dealii dot org [this message]
2003-07-23  1:09 ` msimons at simons-clan dot com
2003-07-23  9:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-08-23 17:11 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-21 16:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-21 16:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-30  1:47 ` [Bug c++/11633] [DR 430] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-04-30 18:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030722233651.17805.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).