http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-24 03:51:32 UTC --- > a + (++a ? 0 : 0); Hmm, I don't think there is a sequence point issue here compared to the other case where it might cause an undefined code. (++a ? 0 : 0) is all in done in one sequence point so that is defined and then added to a. a might be accessed before or after the sequence point where a is modified but there is a sequence point between the access and the modification.
