------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 20:51 ------- (In reply to comment #30) > I'm not sure what you mean by the system(...) call... I understand that the > code > is undefined (meaning its up to the compiler vendor to implement as they see > fit). I think the most fitting way is to have the above two cases unified in > behaviour... isn't one of the reasons that operators were added to C++ was to > allow user-defined types to mimic the functionality and usability of the > native > C types?
Undefined means that we can do anything. Which where the system call comes from. The point is that this undefined, there does not even have be a constancy in the behavior across optimization levels, types or anything else. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11751
