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

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation
Date	2022-04-06 14:50 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<t2kncv$ite$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <t2f03t$kt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2f420$q7p$1@dont-email.me> <t2hmk6$1nno$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2hnnm$c47$1@dont-email.me> <t2hon3$rje$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/5/22 11:54, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:37:23 -0700
> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/5/2022 8:18 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 08:49:18 -0700
>>> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2022 7:42 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:02:44 +0200
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/04/2022 10:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Perhaps it should be defined as it looks reasonable to me. What does the
>>>>>>> standard say about i = (++i) + (++i) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same thing - undefined behaviour.  Parentheses do not affect the
>>>>>> order of evaluation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand why it should be undefined. It should evaluate both
>> sides
>>>>> of the argument in order they're defined - and it has to be in order or
>>>>> precedance checks, lazy evaluation and function calls could fail - and then

Since you've denied making any such comment, I'd like to point out the
above as the place where you suggest that the order of evaluation is
determined by "the order they're defined" and "precedence".

If you think that the first ++i must be evaluated before the second ++i,
just because it's "defined first", then you've made the mistake that
people have been accusing you of.

>>>> do
>>>>> the addition. So if i = 1 at the start then at the end it should be 2 + 3.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lot of "should" and "has to be" with no connection to reality.
>>>>
>>>> C and C++ don't work that way. Precedence in C and C++ has no relation
>>>> to order of evaluation for built-in operators.

That is an exaggeration. While not defined in terms of precedence, in
many contexts the grammar of C and C++ conveys the same information that
could also have been conveyed by an operator precedence table (and in
others, it conveys information that could not be explained solely by
operator precedence).
The C and C++ grammars definitely do constrain the order of evaluation,
but they do not determine it. In particular, the two ++i expressions are
unambiguously unsequenced.

>>> Really? So if I write a + b * c it might evaluate a + b first? You sure
>>> about that?
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely! In fact, it can evaluate `(a + c / x) * 42` first. No one 
>> knows what it will evaluate first and how it will evaluate it.
> 
> And why would it evaluate a+b when the result would be thrown away unless
> 'c' happened to be 1? Is this some special compiler guaranteed to produce the 
> least efficient binary possible?

I'd recommend ignoring Andrey's answer. While technically correct, it's
correct only in the sense the the compiler is free to generate code
which does anything it wants to do, so long as it makes sure that
there's no resulting "observable behavior", as that term is defined in
4.1p6. That definition is very definitely NOT the same as "behavior
which is observable". It must, in addition to doing whatever it wants to
do with no observable consequences, also perform the specified
calculation (at least, if there are any observable consequences of
performing that calculation correctly), and I'm sure you were only
referring to how it handles that calculation. Andrey's answer doesn't
address that point.

A conforming implementation of C++ has to evaluate b and c before
evaluating b*c, but those two evaluations are unsequenced. It must
evaluate a and b*c before evaluating a + b*c, but the evaluation of a
and the evaluation of b*c are unsequenced. As a consequence, the
evaluation of a is also unsequenced relative to the evaluations of b and c.

I hope that makes it clear how operator precedence constrains the order
of evaluation, but does not determine it.

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