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: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Lawrence Kirby Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/08 Message-ID: <828964950snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146368618 x-nntp-posting-host: genesis.demon.co.uk references: <4k9qhe$65r@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: 1996-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes: >Boy, this sure has wandered! THe original issue was the semantic behavior >of read. Unlike other unices, in Linux, the bounds check for the read >buffer is based on the requested count, rather than the actual count >of data bytes read. It is hard to say either approach is right or >wrong, but they are different enough to cause portability problems. Both approaches meet the relevant standards and are correct. Only broken code has portability problems, but that's nothing new. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------