From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25493 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2007 17:49:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 25474 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2007 17:49:06 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070422174906.25473.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/31652] postfix increment semantics implemented incorrectly In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "drow at false dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg01627.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 18:49 ------- Subject: Re: postfix increment semantics implemented incorrectly On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:18:09PM -0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > 13.5.1/1 explains that: > @x is the same as operator@(x) or x.operator@() [depending on if x has a member > function for operator@ or not] . Sorry; I checked with Mark and this is indeed the relevant paragraph. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31652