Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000511021045.007af4a0@pop.crosswinds.net>
X-Sender: shinelight AT pop DOT crosswinds DOT net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:10:45 -0500
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight AT crosswinds DOT net>
Subject: Re: feof(FILE *) NOT portable...
In-Reply-To: <391A44C5.BA4BBCCC@mtu-net.ru>
References: <8empao$5k6$1 AT nnrp02 DOT primenet DOT com>
 <390ef9f9$0$72098 AT SSP1NO17 DOT highway DOT telekom DOT at>
 <8emvhq$7mn$1 AT nnrp03 DOT primenet DOT com>
 <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 20000505015633 DOT 007b2210 AT pop DOT crosswinds DOT net>
 <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 32 DOT 20000510204858 DOT 007b6e40 AT pop DOT crosswinds DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 09:27 AM 5/11/00 +0400, you wrote:
>I think the Borland C compiler you use has a bit buggy LIBC.
>
>In fact, you must try to read one character from the file in order to
>determinde EOF. Just read help from BC:
>--------------------8<-----------------------
>Return Value:
> _ Returns non-zero if an end-of-file
>   indicator was detected on the last input
>   operation on the named stream.
> _ Returns 0 if end-of-file has not been
>   reached.
>--------------------8<-----------------------
>
>*Last input operation* means you must invoke feof() after fgetc() or
>something like that.
>
>Btw, you may forget about feof() almost at all if you use fgetc(). That's
>because fgetc() returns an integer value (not a single-byte character). And
>the return value is -1 when you try to read past the end of the file.
>
>Good Luck
>Alexei A. Frounze
>-----------------------------------------
>Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
>Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru

Actually, I have tested this code with both Borland's Turbo C v3.0 for DOS
as well as the latest Borland C++ Builder free command-line tools.  The
exact same results tell be that over many generations of compilers (with
thousands and thousands of builds of the libraries and executables), either
Borland hasn't noticed a non-ANSI standard with feof, or they are following
the standard.  My aim is to prove which one doesn't follow the ANSI
standard:  gcc and all ports of it, or Borland.

So, to begin my proof, I went onto the manpages for Linux (on feof) and
discovered that the manpages claim to be following the specifications in
"C3.159-1989"  I have searched both ANSI.org and NSSN.org as well as
regular web search engines for this particular document.  However, I am
unable to find this document or anything newer.  The only thing that kept
coming up was listings of online manpages that made the same reference to
this document that I can't find.  If anyone can point me to this document
online (or even offline), I would greatly appreciate it.


           Thomas J. Hruska -- shinelight AT crosswinds DOT net
Shining Light Productions -- "Meeting the needs of fellow programmers"
                  http://www.shininglightpro.com/