------- 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