> Brooks Moses wrote: > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg01119.html> ... > Does that logic work for you?
no, as although a variable's value may not have been previously defined within the context of a particular program, a variable's access semantics are orthogonal to what ever value may result from that variable's access; and thereby although it's resulting value may be indeterminate, successive logical references must sensibly be presumed to yield equivalent values baring the variable being declared as being volatile, or having an intervening assignment. (there seems to be too much desire to arbitrarily justify anything at the drop of a hat given an opportunity to associate it directly or indirectly with an undefined behavior, regardless of its sensibly; as opposed to recognizing an undefined behavior as an opportunity to define useful logically consistently semantics in their absents, although potentially not strictly portable between implementations)
