https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #21) > One argument against the sequence point is that we don't have one for ?: . > If we add one for ?: several testcases regress, so we have to make sure to > only do the save_expr/compound_expr thing if there are side effects, or port > some more fold-const optimizations to gimple (and update the testcases to > check for the optimization in a later dump). That seems like a fine reason not to diverge from the OpenCL semantics in this case.
