Instead of ignoring the evaluation order rule, ignore the "destroy parameters
in reverse construction order" rule for the small number of problematic cases.
This only causes incorrect behavior in the rare case where both parameters to
an overloaded operator <<, >>, ->*, &&, ||, or comma are of class type with
non-trivial destructor, and the program is depending on those parameters being
destroyed in reverse construction order.
We could do a little better here by reversing the order of parameter
destruction for those functions (and reversing the argument evaluation order
for all direct calls, not just those with operator syntax), but that is not a
complete solution to the problem, as the same situation can be reached by an
indirect function call.
Approach reviewed off-line by rnk.
llvm-svn: 282777
a560ccf2af