From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15473 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2002 20:46:18 -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 15447 invoked by uid 71); 2 Jul 2002 20:46:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020702204614.15444.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Paolo Carlini Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time Reply-To: Paolo Carlini X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7181; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Paolo Carlini To: Mark Mitchell Cc: "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org" , "dobrynin@bigfoot.com" , "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" , Nathan Sidwell Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo::bar = foo::bar + foo::bar evaluates to zero at compile time Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 22:44:41 +0200 Mark Mitchell wrote: > --On Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:28:13 PM +0200 Paolo Carlini > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> from a very practical point of view, would be difficult to restore the >> behaviour of 2.95.x? Note that Intel and Comeau adopts that "particular" >> initialization order and the current "equivalent" one ;-) breaks a whole >> body of literature on template metaprogramming... > > > Perhaps. It may also be that picking one order makes this example work, > but some similar example fail. Thanks for your feedback. This one of yours is an important point, indeed. Anyone attempting to restore the old behaviour should first prove that it's really the "best" one in some non trivial sense. I had always believed it is, but... Thanks again, Paolo.