From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id DAE623858D20; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:23:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DAE623858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681208613;
	bh=Srxali0+dV/PW+/v0u0kZCAeXWsBpToNwUMHag7InjE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OXsrG+twFMa9OM1eHEPTxWsNortxGYuVdB3b/pjKgWJ70yCw6XNk5B+CMrY6GGAKq
	 vUtVZX8e+zUHSxrJk0Ej3OKh98BPr2TNjB37PRsL/au72TblC4aJKNodlDG15zflU8
	 8N/Bdcj7duilzITwed1PGR41//BjrqKmfprpQ/bs=
From: "johannes.kellner at wandelbots dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109470] unexpected const & behavior
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:23:33 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: johannes.kellner at wandelbots dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109470-4-bl9omOeHHx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109470-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109470-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109470

--- Comment #6 from Johannes Kellner <johannes.kellner at wandelbots dot co=
m> ---
Ok, Ok :)
It's not to me to argue this.

It's just an unexpected behavior (something I was unaware off/ something th=
at
does not happen when doing the same code with other compilers clang/msvc).

And in my humble opinion - `full-expression containing the call` could be
understood as - until end of enclosing scope.
Or at least if understood this way, I would not have the uninitialized vari=
able
:)

I just had a stupid error and found this as the reason. We discussed it and
even others in my team, assumed that it might be a bug. As we were not able=
 to
reproduce this behavior in other compilers we tested.
Nor did see this as `invalid` code - `ugly` yes, but not `invalid`. And yes,
this code is 'not the best possible way'...

Well maybe you take this ticket as a reason to `review` the interpretation,
that `full-expression containing the call` does not mean until the `end of
enclosing scope`...

For me, I'm fine with current outcome.
Thank you anyway for the quick, very friendly and professional responses!

Best regards=