Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/11/00:34:41
Wow, I'm overwhelmed by the response. I'll try to cover everyone's ideas here.
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 1) Since most DOS-based compiler don't have POSIX-compliant
> headers such as unistd.h, I suggest that the Portability
> section would also include the headers where the
> functions/variables are declared in the other DOS compilers.
This is a good idea; however it requires that we look at all the other DOS
compilers. If people are around who have Microsoft, Borland, Watcom,
Zortech, etc, that's fine, but I personally don't. I'd need help on this one.
George Foot wrote:
>: 2) Sometimes functions which exist on other platforms have
>: slightly different functionality. In such cases, the
>: differences should be mentioned.
>
>I partially disagree; I think it would be useful to point out which
>functions are portable and to what extent, certainly, and since djgpp
>compiles for DOS it would make sense to include portability
>information to MS and Borland; but I don't think the libc docs are the
>place to describe exactly how certain functions work on *other*
>compilers.
This is a bit of a dilemma. It does seem out of place to describe other
platforms in DJGPP documentation. Also, actually finding all these
differences is a nightmare. It would be helpful to know how things work
elsewhere, but IMHO people should consult the platform itself for specifics.
Otherwise, we end up saying things like "Watcom's `stat' doesn't fill in the
`st_link' field" ad nauseum, bloating the docs, and then Watcom changes
their behavior and our documentation is wrong. Major, general differences
should be noted, yes. Like for `fork', it would IMHO not be inappropriate to
say, "On Unix systems, this function actually works". How does that sound?
Ned Ulbricht wrote:
>Obviously there's not a problem with relying on public domain
>references when they're relevent and available. And certain functions
>can just be declared non-portable (djgpp only or gcc only) by fiat. But
>to list something as portable will usually require relying on sources
>which are not in the public domain--unless we test it ourselves.
Are you saying there is a legal problem with saying "Microsoft C supports
`int86'" if we have gleaned that from reading Microsoft documentation? That
seems hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible. Perhaps we could avoid
specifically mentioning the competition and say, "`int86' is available on
other DOS compilers"? Any other thoughts here?
Eli wrote:
>You don't need the standards, it is enough to look into the DJGPP
>headers.
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Of course, those were made by people who
knew what standards supported what features, so I can avoid doing all that
work again.
Various people wrote:
[offers of access to Unix systems, man pages, etc]
Thanks for the offers! I have a Linux system here with all the info and man
pages, so I can use that as a reference. I believe Linux is a fairly good
mix of the characteristics of various Unices, If someone has information
about a specific system, that would of course be helpful.
George wrote:
>There are a lot of functions in the docs though; perhaps they should
>be `farmed out' to volunteers?
Any volunteers? :)
I'm not sure what would be the best way to divide it: per-function,
per-platform, ?? In any case, any help would be greatly appreciated.
I will be on vacation next week, and will have to unsubscribe from the djgpp
list to avoid overflowing my inbox. :( So if anybody sends something then,
please cc: to me if possible to make sure I get it (my e-mail address is for
real ;-). I probably won't be able to start work until after I get back.
One other question: Would it be better to move this discussion/project to
`djgpp-workers'?
Thanks, everybody, for your really helpful comments!!
Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net
- Raw text -