From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-55566-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20495 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2014 09:10:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20382 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2014 09:09:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f179.google.com
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f179.google.com) (209.85.217.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:09:52 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v6so4484915lbi.38        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 02:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.93.75 with SMTP id cs11mr8656094lbb.82.1405933789407; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 02:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.188.164 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 02:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53CCD481.60201@bo.infn.it>
References: <53CCD481.60201@bo.infn.it>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:10:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdTX+iHeANOOmruUQtDkbNWiu=ddoUm8tpmcAjWrkgJQPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: question
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Graziano Servizi <Graziano.Servizi@bo.infn.it>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

On 21 July 2014 09:51, Graziano Servizi wrote:
> Is there an "undefined behaviour" in the following short code?
>
>
> //
> # include <iostream>
> # include <functional>
>
>  int main(  )
>  {
>   int c = 90;
>   double r = 70;
>   auto v = [c] (double c)
>    {std::cout << "homonymous dummy argument ... " << c << std::endl;};
>   v(r);
>  }
>
>
> //
>
> I ask this because the gnu-gcc compiler prints out the value of the
> "captured" int c = 90 variable, while clang prints the value of the double r
> = 70 transmitted argument instead...

It looks like a GCC bug, please report it to Bugzilla.