http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub <schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com> 2011-04-29 16:20:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I think the relevant wording in the C1X DIS is "With respect to an > indeterminately-sequenced function call, the operation of postfix ++ is a > single evaluation."; C++ N3291 has the same wording. Yes, I agree. This makes it clearer than my C++03 description using sequence points that GCC is in error.
