On 30 January 2015 at 07:23, Conrad S wrote:
> On 30 January 2015 at 16:58, James Dennett wrote:
>> It's hardly just a loophole: C++ doesn't specify the order of evaluation,
>> so the code is wrong (i.e., non-portable, as you've found).
>>
>> Arguably this is a design problem with IOStreams, given
On 30 January 2015 at 16:58, James Dennett wrote:
> It's hardly just a loophole: C++ doesn't specify the order of evaluation,
> so the code is wrong (i.e., non-portable, as you've found).
>
> Arguably this is a design problem with IOStreams, given how
> tempting it can be to write code that assumes
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Conrad S wrote:
>
> Which compiler is correct here - gcc or clang?
Both compilers are correct.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
>
> Consider the following code:
>
> #include
>
> struct blah {
> inline double setval(unsigned int& x) const
>
Which compiler is correct here - gcc or clang?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
Consider the following code:
#include
struct blah {
inline double setval(unsigned int& x) const
{
x = 123;
return 456.0;
}
};
int
main(int argc, char** argv) {
blah blah_ins
