[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

Change the example in 6.9.1 [intro.execution] paragraph 16 as follows:

    i = v[i++];             // the behavior is undefined
    i = 7, i++, i++;        // i becomes 9
    i = ++i i++ + 1;        // the behavior is undefined
    i = i + 1;              // the value of i is incremented

This resolution also resolves issue 222.

Notes from the February, 2008 meeting:

There was no real support in the CWG for weakening the resolution of issue 222 and returning the example to having undefined behavior. No one knew of an implementation that doesn't already do the (newly) right thing for such an example, so there was little motivation to go out of our way to increase the domain of undefined behavior. So the proposed resolution is to change the example to one that definitely does have undependable behavior in existing practice, and undefined behavior under the new rules.

Also, the new formulation of the sequencing rules approved in Oxford contained the wording that by and large resolved issue 222, so with the resolution of this issue, we can also close issue 222.

In 6.9.1 [intro.execution] paragraph 16, the following expression is still listed as an example of undefined behavior:

    i = ++i + 1;

However, it appears that the new sequencing rules make this expression well-defined:

1. The assignment side-effect is required to be sequenced after the value computations of both its LHS and RHS (7.6.19 [expr.ass] paragraph 1).

2. The LHS (i) is an lvalue, so its value computation involves computing the address of i.

3. In order to value-compute the RHS (++i + 1), it is necessary to first value-compute the lvalue expression ++i and then do an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the result. This guarantees that the incrementation side-effect is sequenced before the computation of the addition operation, which in turn is sequenced before the assignment side effect. In other words, it yields a well-defined order and final value for this expression.

It should be noted that a similar expression

    i = i++ + 1;

is still not well-defined, since the incrementation side-effect remains unsequenced with respect to the assignment side-effect.

It's unclear whether making the expression in the example well-defined was intentional or just a coincidental byproduct of the new sequencing rules. In either case either the example should be fixed, or the rules should be changed.

Clark Nelson: In my opinion, the poster's argument is perfectly correct. The rules adopted reflect the CWG's desired outcome for issue 222. At the Portland meeting, I presented (and still sympathize with) Tom Plum's case that these rules go a little too far in nailing down required behavior; this is a consequence of that.

One way or another, a change needs to be made, and I think we should seriously consider weakening the resolution of issue 222 to keep this example as having undefined behavior. This could be done fairly simply by having the sequencing requirements for an assignment expression depend on whether it appears in an lvalue context.

James Widman: How's this for a possible re-wording?

In all cases, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced after the value computations of the right and left operands. Furthermore, if the assignment expression appears in a context where an lvalue is required, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced before its value computation.