#1020, as a fix to #953, changed the example in [intro.execution]/10 so it now contains:

  i = i++ + 1;                  // the value of i is incremented

I suspect that this change is not correct.

According to [expr.ass], the following steps take place in order:

1. the value computation of rhs (i++ + 1)
2. the value computation of lhs (i)
3. the assignment to i
4. the value computation of the assignment expression

But it appears to me that [expr.ass] doesn't specify how the side effect of i++ (i.e. the modification to i) happens relative to step 3.

Also, P0145R3 mentions "the current proposal does not suggest any particular modification to the sequencing of unary expressions", which seems to suggest that i++ is still unsequenced relative to the assignment, thus the expression has UB under the post-P0145R3 rules just like under the old rules.