http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub
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 e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-29 12:13:46 UTC ---
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++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-29 12:03:14 UTC ---
This may well be a bug, but it's the sort of case where you want an
analysis not in terms of sequence points but in terms of the more
precisely defined sequencing mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #2 from Johannes Schaub
2011-04-29 10:42:12 UTC ---
Since the order of evaluation is undefined it may evaluate "count++" and
"incr()" in any order, as it pleases.
Since there is a sequence point before entering a function, and befor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48814
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-29
09:56:08 UTC ---
6.5.16/4
"The order of evaluation of the operands is unspecified."
The gimplifier is responsible for this semantic detail of GENERIC (that
matches C for its sequence point rules)
