From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.com>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com>
Cc: <rearnsha@arm.com>, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Is this a gcc bug?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:38:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101111737090.1327-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
References: <200101111733.JAA19147@racerx.synopsys.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00743.html

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Joe Buck wrote:

> >
> > > How about something like:
> > >         warning: 'x' may have unexpected value because of side-effects
> > > or
> > >         warning: side-effects make value of 'x' undefined
> > > or
> > >         warning: undefined order of side-effects on 'x'
> > > One might replace "side-effects" by "updates" or "changes to".
> >
> > How about, multiple side-effects on 'x' between sequence points?
>
> "sequence points" is standardese and doesn't mean anything to most users.
> Even "side-effects" may be surprising -- I don't think a user thinks
> of the increment of x in x++ as a "side effect".
>
> How about:
>
> warning: the order of the modifications to 'x' is undefined

Possibly "may be undefined".  I think the wording "may" was put there
intentionally because the first versions of this code tended to generate
false positives now and then.  This can probably still happen with the
current version in some rare cases.


Bernd