Consider the following code: It produces the following warnings in gcc but not in clang: Why? This may be related but the referenced gcc bug ...
Consider the following code: It produces the following warnings in gcc but not in clang: Why? This may be related but the referenced gcc bug ...
It is known that there is a sequence point at ?, which means that both the prefix and postfix operations have to be completed by that point. Also it ...
I keep finding more idioms that lend themselves to std::exchange. Today I found myself writing this in an answer: I like it a lot more than, say ...
It is recommended not to modify an object more than once in a single expression nor using it after modifying it in the same expression. I think ...
It is well known that the evaluation order of actual arguments varies from one C compiler to the other. But as ISO 9899:1999 states in §6.5.2.2.10: ...
I basically have the following code snippet: For correctness, it is important that the atomic load of anotherAtomicCounter occurs after the fetch-a ...
I know that: results in undefined behavior. Since Modifying any object more than once between two sequence points is UB. Undefined behavior and ...
According to this answer, the following are the sequence points described in the standard: Between the evaluations of the function designator and ...
I'm using C language, for the below code: In the above code I get output as 2 1. I think the output should be 2 0. Please correct me if wrong, to ...
Originally, I presented a more complicated example, this one was proposed by @n. 'pronouns' m. in a now-deleted answer. But the question became too lo ...
As far as I know, C++ code like foo(++i, ++i) yields undefined behavior because it mutates i twice per "sequence point" (by the way, what's the new te ...
As seen on this godbolt link clang in c++14 mode(but not in c++17) and GCC in c++17 mode produce warnings about sequencing. I assumed that in C++17 a ...
Standard says that: There is a sequence point immediately before a library function returns. C17dr § 7.1.4 3. I know that there is a sequence ...
Wikipedia says that: In computer science, an operation, function or expression is said to have a side effect if it modifies some state variable va ...
I'm getting a warning from GCC 10.1 about possible undefined behavior. Clang 10 does not warn. Here is the snippet causing the warning: template & ...
Similar codes for example (a+=1)%=7;, where a is an int variable. We know that operator += or = is not a sequence point, therefore we have two side-e ...
Is x+=x*=x undefined behavior? Can anyone explain this rule in Order of evaluation? What is "single evaluation"? What is the opposite of "single ...
Consider the following expression (with declaration for exposition): Does this fall foul of sequencing rules? In my opinion, the pre-increment is ...
As I've learned that the conditional operator (ternary operator "?") guarantees the order of the evaluation of its operands I want to know whether ass ...
A line of code that I naively thought would translate fairly literally between Perl 6 and Perl 5 in fact did not, due to differences in how a post-inc ...