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

From	Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: GCC hasn't even gotten around to sequencing argument evaluation
Date	2022-04-06 18:39 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<t2lfcq$kna$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <t2f420$q7p$1@dont-email.me> <t2hmk6$1nno$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2hnnm$c47$1@dont-email.me> <t2hon3$rje$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t2kncv$ite$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/6/2022 11:50 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

I'm going to have to override this recommendation (what I usually call 
"to pull the rank"). My answer stands unchanged.

As usual on Usenet (and Internet in general) the matter quickly gets out 
of hands and spills out of the boundaries of the original topic, which 
is what happened here. I would normally just ignore such chaff, but in 
this case I just have to remark on the fact that what this topic 
demonstrates is how many members here lack understanding of what the 
language standard actually is, what it defines and how it actually "works".

The fundamental axiom that you need to grasp in order to even start 
developing that understanding is the fact the standard never imposes any 
direct behavioral requirements upon the implementations. When it comes 
to defining a conforming program's behavior the standard connects to 
implementations in a very indirect way, that can be outlined in the 
following three steps:

   1. The Standard defines the behavior of an imaginary Abstract C++ 
Machine and only of Abstract C++ Machine

   2. The Abstract C++ Machine, when fed in program P, determines the 
conforming observable behavior of that program P, or a 
multitude/variety/range/set of conforming observable behaviors

   3. A conforming implementation can translate the program P in any way 
it pleases, but it has to make sure that the resultant observable 
behavior of P falls into the range of observable behavior defined at step 2

That's all. That is what the language standard is and that is how it 
"works" when it comes to program's behavior.

Never ever anywhere in the standard text it makes an attempt to impose 
any localized behavioral requirements directly onto the actual 
implementations, like imposing a specific order of evaluation for an 
expression. The connection between the standard and the implementations 
exists, but only in a very very VERY circuitous way shown above. Every 
time you see the standard seemingly making a specific behavioral 
requirement directed at the implementations, it is really a just 
_shorthand_, a compact way of referring to the above long and roundabout 
relationship.

For some reason, despite all efforts of C++ community, many people have 
hard time grasping this concept. And it shows. This misunderstanding is 
the source of bizarre claims and expectations, like expecting operator 
precedence and associativity define/determine the order of evaluation in 
actual programs. (Even if you wanted to insist on it, it would still 
apply to imaginary Abstract C++ Machine only, not to the actual 
real-life implementations.)

P.S. There are other requirements imposed by the standard upon 
implementations, like issuing a diagnostic when one's required, and 
other auxiliary/utilitarian matters. Above I'm talking about conforming 
program's behavioral requirements only.

-- 
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

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