Re: Potential Violation of 6.5p2

On Aug 9, 10:56 am, wrote:
Shao Miller <> wrote:
On Aug 9, 7:40?am, "Ersek, Laszlo" <la...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And so on. Even if the same "slot" of "ia" is accessed twice (once read,
once written to), the data dependencies dictated by how the operators are
bound together serialize those accesses correctly.

Unfortunately, despite the flow of causality you point out, an object
is read for purposes unrelated to a computation of the value which
will be stored in it, which I perceive to be a violation of a "shall"
in 6.5p2.  What I'm wondering is if anyone sees a way out of this
violation, or doesn't see it at all.

The way out is C1X, the latest draft of which can be found at the
committee's web site <> as
document N1494.  The statement in 6.5p2 did not fully reflect the
committee's intent, but there was never any agreement on a formal model
that did correctly reflect the intent before the new memory and
sequencing model reflected in the draft.
Thanks, Larry! Simply amazing. Identification of an lvalue's object
is defined as part of value computation. The way out is C1X,
indeed. :)