From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4237 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2005 20:38:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4167 invoked by uid 48); 23 Feb 2005 20:38:56 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050223203856.4166.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "d_picco at hotmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030731175202.11751.me@elitsa.net> References: <20030731175202.11751.me@elitsa.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/11751] wrong evaluation order of an expression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg02886.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From d_picco at hotmail dot com 2005-02-23 20:38 ------- The point I was making with my example is that the native types (int, long, char, etc...) have different behaviour than a user-defined class with the operator++. If it is compiler dependent which way the expression is evaluated, why not at least make them both agree? GCC is also the only compiler out of the 5 that I've tested that exhibits this behaviour... all others unify the behaviour of native and user-defined operator++. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11751