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: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146253948 references: <828632277snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <4k3utg$ndp@solutions.solon.com> organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Dan Pop > >"This is plain nonsense. read in Linux (or anywhere else) CANNOT be ANSI >compliant for the simple reason that the ANSI/ISO C standard does NOT >define such a function. read may (or may not) be POSIX, SVID or XPG >" > >Dan, you miss the point, of course read in Linux is compliant with the >ANSI standard, precisely because this standard does NOT specify any >required behavior for read, and permits the addition of such functions. > >How could you possibly claim that read could be non-compliant with ANSI >(something is either compliant or non-compliant, we do not have three >valued logic here). A program calling a function which isn't defined by that program and isn't part of the standard C library invokes undefined behaviour (the same as dereferencing a null pointing or dividing by zero). Such a program is not a strictly conforming ANSI C program. >It would be interesting to know more details about Unix validation. I >guess the point here is that most systems that people think of as Unix >are actually NOT called Unix (e.g. Linux, IRIX, AIX, Solaris), and so >you have to be very careful in understanding what this validation means. It's not a matter of how they are called, but of what they claim to be. For example, Solaris claims to be: UNIX(r) System V Release 4.0 and IRIX says: IRIX System V.4 >I guess the issue here is IPR protection rather than propagation of an >open standard. > >Precisely which commonly used Unix-like systems have been certified by >the copyright holder in this manner? Solaris and IRIX, by the time the copyright holder was Novell, Digital UNIX by X/Open. Dan -- Dan Pop CERN, CN Division Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland