From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5695 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2002 17:16:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5671 invoked by uid 61); 22 Apr 2002 17:16:12 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020422171612.5670.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, suan@cs.wisc.edu From: jsm28@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: jsm28@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jsm28@cam.ac.uk, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, suan@cs.wisc.edu, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/6409: C comma operator: wrong behavior X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01117.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: C comma operator: wrong behavior State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: jsm28 State-Changed-When: Mon Apr 22 10:16:11 2002 State-Changed-Why: Sequence points define a partial ordering, not a total ordering. There is no ordering in the example between (val=11) and any part of the other argument of +. Both arguments of the comma operator conflict with (val=11), causing undefined behavior if this code is ever executed (so the compiler can make deductions on the basis that it never will be executed). http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6409