------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net  2005-05-21 17:31 
-------
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is undefined, see the full discussion on the gcc list:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00073.html

- out of curiosity, it's not clear that the discussion reached any
   conclusion which enables GCC to disreguard the type semantics
   as specifed by the program code.  Where in the standard does it
   specify that a type qualifier may be disreguarded if convenient?

   (candidly, I would have exected the specifed rvalue reference to
    x to force x's logical value into memory if not previously done,
    and then subsequently re-accessed to satisfy the union of both
    semantic interpretations.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21568

Reply via email to