Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:52:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
In-Reply-To: <6bq331$l9e$1@news.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980211115214.15677G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On 10 Feb 1998, George Foot wrote:

> but I don't think the libc docs are the
> place to describe exactly how certain functions work on *other*
> compilers.

I never meant anything but a simple note for programmers to beware of
subtle differences.  I don't think anybody will be willing to invest
more effort than that.

As a typical example, a note in the docs for `access' saying that
Borland doesn't have the R_OK, W_OK etc. symbols should be IMHO
useful.  The same goes for `stat' which returns zero st_inode member
in every DOS compiler I've seen.  OTOH, including disassembled code of
those functions is NOT what I was thinking about ;-).

> It's meant for reference, after all.

In my book, references should be full.  But Nate is the one who will
have to decide where to draw the line.

> Does that mean that all ANSI functions are POSIX too?

Yes.  POSIX is a superset of ANSI (as far as the C library is
concerned).