From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-435678-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24731 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2013 09:14:32 -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 24695 invoked by uid 48); 24 Nov 2013 09:14:27 -0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:14:00 -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: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
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-59264-4-quHeNqVHJb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59264-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59264-4@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: 2013-11/txt/msg02455.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> But it works correctly in Turbo C and Borland C compiler why not in gcc

Well, the point is precisely that all executions, Turbo C, Borland C or GCC,
are equally correct, since the code has undefined behavior...