In terms of evaluation sequence, it is easier to think of x*f(x) as if it was:
operator*(x, f(x));
so that there are no mathematical preconceptions on how multiplication is supposed to work.
As @dan04 helpfully pointed out, the standard says:
Section 1.9.15: “Except where noted, evaluations of operands of individual operators and of subexpressions of individual expressions are unsequenced.”
This means that the compiler is free to evaluate these arguments in any order, the sequence point being operator* call. The only guarantee is that before the operator* is called, both arguments have to be evaluated.
In your example, conceptually, you could be certain that at least one of the arguments will be 7, but you cannot be certain that both of them will. To me, this would be enough to label this behaviour as undefined; however, @user2079303 answer explains well why it is not technically the case.
Regardless of whether the behaviour is undefined or indeterminate, you cannot use such an expression in a well-behaved program.