From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/13 Message-ID: <4knqun$ga1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147273536 references: <4kkdv4$ik4@nntp.Stanford.EDU> organization: Mindcraft, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert Dewar wrote: >Of course GCC has a much more agressive view of portability, but it >certainly would be nice to see more standardization here, I don't understand. Do you have portability problems when you use gcc in ANSI mode? >and for >example, it sure would be nice if everyone's make utility implemented >at least vaguely the same semantics! POSIX.2 specifies a well-defined set of semantics for make. XPG4 picks up the POSIX.2 spec and adds some extensions that are also guaranteed to be supported on conforming systems (see www.xopen.co.uk for a list; look for XPG4 BASE 95 branded products). That doesn't solve the problem of having to import code whose maintainers choose to use extensions from, for example, gnu make, BSD make, or imake. If you're maintaining a diverse code base you may have to keep several versions of make on hand. At least for these examples the source is readily available. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu