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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Lawrence Kirby Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/06 Message-ID: <828825929snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146148359 x-nntp-posting-host: genesis.demon.co.uk references: <828632277snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <4k3utg$ndp@solutions.solon.com> x-mail2news-path: genesis.demon.co.uk organization: none reply-to: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes: >"You know, POSIX, Spec 1170, X/Open, that kind of stuff. POSIX is the one the >US govt. will not use Win NT because of, because it doesn't match the spec >they've selected." > >But none of POSIX, Spec 1170, nor X/Open have official validatoin suites >and testing procedures as far as I know, and certainly very few Unix >implemntations are 100% compliant with POSIX (very few versions of Unix >even claim to support Draft 10 of Posix threads). X/Open is not even >a standard as far as I know. I assume that there are specific parts of POSIX required for validation, not all of it. Parts of it are still very much under development. >I am quite aware that the behavior of read in Linux is ANSI compliant >(dspite your memory, I never claimed otherwise). read() isn't defined by ANSI C, in this context it is a POSIX.1 function. >I just noted that this >is incompatible with most traditional impleemntations and causes >portability problems. You could take the view that is shows up portability problems in code in a reasonably tracable way and, as such, is a positive feature! :-) >I actually know ANSI C very well, but I do not find this knowledge >as useful as the Microsoft book on C runtime routines which shows >compatibilities between various systems. There are things in ANSI >which you cannot use safely and portably, I'm curious as to the sort of things you are thinking of. and there are things you >can use saetly and portably that are not in ANSI. This will change >over time, but that is my experience to date. >Anyway, can someone who really knows the score here tell us: > >Which of Unix, Posix, Spec 1170, X/Open have approved national and/or >international standards. Well, POSIX is IEEE standard 1003. I don't think SPEC1170 and XPG are national/international standards but are something you have to conform to if you want to call your OS UNIX(tm). -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------