Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined behavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : Gianni Mariani
Date : Wed Feb 23 2005 05:28 am

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Gianni Mariani wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>You're solution is still too restrictive.  I can't create virtual
>>objects in that shared memory of yours.
> 
> 
> Not portably. Simply put, because it involves sharing of C++ runtime 
> stuff you don't control portably. But idiotic semantics you seem to 
> like so much are even less portable.

Please explain using facts alone - not opinion - why the requirement is 
so "idiotic".

.