From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17102 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2005 20:51:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16921 invoked by uid 48); 23 Feb 2005 20:51:19 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050223205119.16919.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030731175202.11751.me@elitsa.net> References: <20030731175202.11751.me@elitsa.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/11751] wrong evaluation order of an expression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg02893.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- 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