From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29799 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2002 20:16:21 -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 29558 invoked by uid 71); 2 Jul 2002 20:16:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020702201614.29494.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time Reply-To: Mark Mitchell X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7181; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Mitchell To: Nathan Sidwell , "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 13:08:21 -0700 --On Tuesday, July 02, 2002 08:42:23 PM +0100 Nathan Sidwell wrote: > 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?\ The standard doesn't specifies that the point of instantiation for the various static data members is "the same". It doesn't say which one gets instantiated first. Nor, according to John, does it say which one gets initialized first. So, I think the standard says "all those things get instantiated and initialized in some order" -- but not which order, similar to the example in 3.6.2. These are dynamic initializations; the initializers are not constant expressions. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com