From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444615-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29198 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2014 11:10:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29146 invoked by uid 48); 22 Feb 2014 11:10:07 -0000
From: "mtewoodbury at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/59193] Unused postfix operator temporaries
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:10:00 -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: trivial
X-Bugzilla-Who: mtewoodbury at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
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: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-59193-4-airbRqmRvD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59193-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59193-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg02372.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59193

Max TenEyck Woodbury <mtewoodbury at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---

--- Comment #12 from Max TenEyck Woodbury <mtewoodbury at gmail dot com> ---
Just because the compiler is ALLOWED to discard the r-value as part of the
OPTIMIZATION process, does NOT mean that a program that calls for an EXTRANEOUS
temporary is without defect.  Such a program IS trivially defective and
removing that kind of defect should be allowed without comment.  Such changes
may want to cite an open bug report as their justification.

While you are arguing about what the compiler does, the issue here is about
what the source code calls for.  The compiler can and should clean up such
defects, but it should not be called upon to do so.  THAT i the issue and you
are NOT addressing it.