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

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation
Date	2022-04-04 09:02 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<t2e55d$920$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <229baf9c-b7a4-417e-81f3-1ac0351cd00cn@googlegroups.com> <6a3be9d2-aa61-4a78-adca-b1a43bc4571bn@googlegroups.com> <95132c7f-3131-4fa3-a44a-5a026777144en@googlegroups.com> <t2cs1l$8t9$1@dont-email.me> <f606600a-d75b-438c-8671-0cadd35bb2d9n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/04/2022 21:49, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 20:20:36 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/04/2022 20:30, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 15:02:19 UTC+1, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 14:47:06 UTC+3, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 12:03:08 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/04/2022 17:39, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 17:27:39 +0200
>>>>>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2022 16:28, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:12:17 +0200
>>>>>>>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It seems gcc has handled this as:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ++i;
>>>>>>>>>> ++i;
>>>>>>>>>> a = i;
>>>>>>>>>> b = i;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and AFAIUI, this interleaving is not allowed in C++17.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prior to C++17, the code could do anything - segfault, return 42, buy
>>>>>>>>>> you flowers - whatever it liked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would it segfault? Its simply incrementing values albeit in an
>>>>>>>>> indeterminate order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In C++17, the incrementing is indeterminate order. Prior to that, it is
>>>>>>>> undefined behaviour. UB /could/ do anything. If the compiler happens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Undefined simply means no one cared enough to define it. The compiler writers
>>>>>>> would have to deliberately change their parameter parsing and stack pushing
>>>>>>> code in order to crash in this instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That kind of argument works when code can be taken alone in small
>>>>>> snippets, without context. But real code is rarely alone. Once things
>>>>>> are going wrong, problems can multiply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typically, undefined behaviour means the compiler can take short-cuts.
>>>>>> That might mean "doing the obvious thing", but it might mean getting
>>>>>> strange and inconsistent behaviour. Given "a = b + c;" using signed int
>>>>>> types, the compiler is likely to generate the assembly code for a two's
>>>>>> complement wrapping addition on most processors. But if it knows that
>>>>>> "b" and "c" are non-negative, then it also knows that "a" is
>>>>>> non-negative and can use that for optimisation - even if the addition
>>>>>> overflowed and "a" contains a negative number.
>>>>>>>> POSIX, documented compiler features, etc.), then you can't rely on it
>>>>>>>> for any purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't rely on a rusty bicycle working, but its not going to shoot you in
>>>>>>> the head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bike won't shoot you - but it could fall apart when you are cycling
>>>>>> down a road, and cars swerving to miss you cause a pile-up with dozens
>>>>>> killed. Undefined behaviour has no inherent limits to its consequences
>>>>>> - that's why you should work to avoid it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And no, despite some people's misunderstandings, this is not due to
>>>>>> overly-enthusiastic optimising compilers or flaws in the language - it
>>>>>> is fundamental to all programming, and fundamental to any kind of error
>>>>>> or mistake in the code. Different compilers, languages, and programming
>>>>>> styles can influence how the risks build up, but not the principles.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> The central issue is that, for some programs, the worst thing you can do is
>>>>> terminate. For example a video game. If it crashes the game is ruined.
>>>> While the program is still in development process and so in hands of
>>>> developers and testers then cheapest to track down defect is when program
>>>> refuses to compile and next best is runtime crash. It does not matter if it is
>>>> for entertainment or for something more serious, what matters is
>>>> development cost.
>>>>
>>> If you're writing control systems for nuclear reactors, you have to have really
>>> tight quality control, including proving of algorithms. But if you're doing
>>> everyday programming, you just don't have those resources.
>>>
>>>
>> You may not have the resources - or the ability - to write bug-free
>> code. That does not mean you should consider some kinds of bugs
>> "acceptable". And it certainly does not mean that you should consider
>> some classes of undefined behaviour as "nothing to worry about, really -
>> there's no need to be careful about integer arithmetic because there's a
>> good chance no one will complain about the mistake".
>>
>> I can appreciate if you find an integer overflow bug and you mark it as
>> low priority in your long list of bugs in the program because it just
>> causes a visual glitch.
>>
>> I cannot accept the attitude that you are happy to write knowingly
>> incorrect code and hope it causes nothing more than a visual glitch.
>>
>> Ultimately, these two attitudes can lead to the same thing - programs
>> released even though you know there are bugs in them, because you don't
>> have the time or resources to fix everything. Real life is not perfect.
>> But there is a very big difference in the philosophies here.
>>
> You fail to follow.
> Say we have this code.
> 
> FILE *fp = openfile();
> int width = readinteger(fp);
> int height = readinteger(fp);
> int Npixels = width * height;  // potential bug here
> 
> Now of course we should put in a test before multiplying two integers
> from an outside source. But these sorts of errors happen. The question is
> that, given that despite all our best efforts this code has got through to
> production, how do we want the program to behave?
> 
> Should we compile with the option "abort on arithmetic overflow" or
> "wrap on arithmetic overflow"?.

Obviously you don't want "wrap on arithmetic overflow", because a 
negative size would be absurd and could lead to all sorts of problems. 
And in a game you probably don't want to enable a compiler feature that 
can produce slower code.  (Few compilers even support "wrap on overflow" 
- gcc and clang with "-fwrapv" are the only ones I know.)

During development and testing, you might want "abort on arithmetic 
overflow" to find the flaws.

Beyond that, it depends on whether the file in question is considered 
part of the program or not.  If it is part of the program, you can trust 
it - and thus you want "undefined behaviour on overflow" or you'd really 
have to check /everything/ in the file.  If it is not part of the 
program, it is outside information and must be sanitized before use. 
And then "undefined behaviour on overflow" is fine.

> 
> As an exercise to the reader, there's a school of thought that these values
> should be size_t. What are the consequences of that policy for program
> robustness?

It is just as bad.

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