Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #83424

Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet???

From Manfred <noname@invalid.add>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet???
Date 2022-04-02 23:04 +0200
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <t2ado5$1cut$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <t28g93$cou$1@dont-email.me> <t298jp$duj$1@dont-email.me> <t29ej1$5dk$1@dont-email.me> <87wng7fdea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/2/22 10:17 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> 
>> On 02/04/2022 12:30, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>>> Am 02.04.22 um 05:34 schrieb Andrey Tarasevich:
>>>
>>>>       int r = foo(++i, ++i);
>>>
>>>> This outputs 6 in GCC 11.2 in `-std=c++17` mode and later. WTF? Adding
>>>> sequencing to argument evaluation, albeit indeterminate, is a major
>>>> and a very important change in C++17. How come it is still not
>>>> implemented in GCC? What are they waiting for? Is there some sort of
>>>> intentional opposition to that change in the standard?
>>>
>>> I'm not an expert on the standard, but according to this page:
>>> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order
>>>
>>> it is not specified. They have exactly your example down the page:
>>>
>>> f(++i, ++i);
>>> // undefined behavior until C++17, unspecified after C++17
>>>
>>> To me that sounds like before C+17, the program could segfault, whereas
>>> with C++17, it can either output 5 or 6, but shold consistently do so.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong?
>>>
>>>      Christian
>>
>> The "unspecified" aspect refers to the ordering of evaluation of the
>> parameters - they are "indeterminately ordered".
>>
>> So given "int foo(int a, int b)", the call "f(++i, ++i)" should be either:
>>
>> 	a = ++i;
>> 	b = ++i;
>> 	foo(a, b);
>>
>> or
>>
>> 	b = ++i;
>> 	a = ++i;
>> 	foo(a, b);
>>
>> It is thus unspecified whether a and b are 2 and 3, or 3 and 2
>> respectively.  But their sum will be the same.
>>
>> It seems gcc has handled this as:
>>
>> 	++i;
>> 	++i;
>> 	a = i;
>> 	b = i;
>>
>> and AFAIUI, this interleaving is not allowed in C++17.
> 
> I am not 100% sure.  The wording (C++20 but similar in C++17) is this:
> 
>    "The initialization of a parameter, including every associated value
>    computation and side effect, is indeterminately sequenced with respect
>    to that of any other parameter."
> 
> That sounds like the two ++i expressions need not to be thought of as
> units with one sequenced before the other.  It sounds as if any
> interleaving of the parts is permitted.  At least that's how I would
> read it, unfamiliar as I am with the way the C++ authors use language.
> 
> (My reading would be the obvious one, I think, had they written "with
> respect to /those/ of any other parameter" but I'm not I want to rely on
> a that/those distinction for this.)

IIUC your distinction is about 'that' referred to initialization only, 
and 'those' that would be referred to initialization + value 
computations etc.
I think the wording is clear enough for the obvious meaning, though: 
they specify that initialization of a parameter is sequenced wrt that of 
any other parameter, but they also specify, in the subordinate, that 
initialization here includes every associated value computation and side 
effect.
This makes the meaning as in your 'those' version, unless I have 
misunderstood your point.

> 
> Also, there's a note which would seem almost redundant otherwise:
> 
>    "[Note: All side effects of argument evaluations are sequenced before
>    the function is entered (see 6.9.1). — end note]
> 

This is a note, which would be allowed to be redundant, but still it's 
about sequencing between argument evaluations and entering of the 
function, while the above is about sequencing of argument evaluations 
with each other. How would this be implied by the above?

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-01 20:34 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 10:19 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-04-02 12:19 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 14:18 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-04-02 12:30 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 14:12 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 14:20 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-02 14:28 +0000
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 17:27 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-02 15:39 +0000
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2022-04-02 09:15 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:21 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 12:02 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 14:42 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 08:49 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:18 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:37 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:54 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-06 11:24 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-06 10:49 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-06 18:21 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 15:40 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-06 15:00 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 17:03 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-04-06 17:18 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-07 08:58 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-07 11:01 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 23:13 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-07 09:11 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 10:53 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 14:50 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Sams Lara <samlara622@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 22:27 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 14:51 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Sams Lara <samlara622@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 22:59 +0100
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 15:54 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-06 15:11 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-09 09:38 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 23:48 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 18:39 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-06 23:49 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:55 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 10:23 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:36 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-04 12:27 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:21 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:41 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:50 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 10:19 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:33 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-05 14:28 -0400
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 18:29 +0200
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 11:27 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:23 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 12:15 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 14:43 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 18:34 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:23 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 08:38 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-05 15:49 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 11:31 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-05 22:45 +0000
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-02 23:34 -0400
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 17:43 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-03 15:40 -0400
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:24 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-04 12:01 -0400
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 13:02 +0200
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 04:46 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-03 07:02 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 11:30 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 21:20 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 12:49 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-04 00:40 +0300
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-03 15:40 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 09:13 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 09:02 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 02:07 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 13:28 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 06:01 -0700
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-04 19:11 +0200
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-04 17:59 +0000
                Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 06:55 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 18:39 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-03 09:09 +0300
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-02 19:53 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-03 13:45 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-03 17:27 +0200
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-02 21:17 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2022-04-02 23:04 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-03 00:22 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 17:33 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-03 14:23 +0100
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-06 08:31 -0700
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-06 11:05 -0700
              Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-25 03:32 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 11:18 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-02 13:11 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-04-02 18:26 +0100
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-04-02 21:46 +0100
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-02 17:35 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Language Lawyer <language.lawyer@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 02:28 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 05:52 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Language Lawyer <language.lawyer@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 03:36 -0700
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-04 10:48 +0000
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-04 05:49 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-05 06:34 +0000
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-04-05 10:20 +0100
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-05 07:51 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-05 17:53 +0200
  Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 06:06 +0200
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-09 21:20 -0700
    Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-09 21:39 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-09 22:34 -0700
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 09:19 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-10 12:21 +0200
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 12:47 +0200
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-11 12:18 -0700
            Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-04-11 12:33 -0700
      Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Christian Hanné <the.hanne@gmail.com> - 2022-04-10 09:20 +0200
        Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-11 12:32 -0700
          Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation yet??? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-11 15:11 -0700

csiph-web