From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12982 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2002 19:56:07 -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 12946 invoked by uid 71); 2 Jul 2002 19:56:07 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 12:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020702195607.12933.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Nathan Sidwell Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time Reply-To: Nathan Sidwell X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7181; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nathan Sidwell To: mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org, dobrynin@bigfoot.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:42:23 +0100 mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org wrote: > > Synopsis: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time > > State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed > State-Changed-By: mmitchel > State-Changed-When: Tue Jul 2 11:31:51 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > This code does not have well-defined behavior. How have you come to this conclusion? The last sentance of [14.7.1]/1 indicates that we must instantiate the definition of Foo::value. I see nothing in [3.6.2] or [3.8] which disallows it. Or are you saying this is a case of [14.7.3]/7? nathan -- Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC 'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?' nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org