On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 07:34:31PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: > Undefined behaviour doesn't mean it must show different results with -O2, > it *might* if the compiler decides to do some optimization. > > But isn't this 'f(g(), x)' issue the same as the classic example of undefined > behaviour with f(++i, ++i)?
I was a bit unclear. I just meant the program no longer displayed random numbers. I agree (now) that this appears to be unspecified behaviour, like f(++i, ++i), but rather more indirectly. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
