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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) 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: 146271775 references: <828632277snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <4k3utg$ndp@solutions.solon.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: If Solaris and IRIX are both certified to meet some Unix standard, it must be a very weak one, because these two systems are HIGHLY incompatible with one another at the level which I would associate with certification. Different sets of routines are supported, and the semantics of similar routines (e.g. thread-safeness) differs. The threads packages are quite different, the make utilities are quite incompatible etc. etc. If the Unix validation correspondes to a set of test programs, then they must be very weak. I wonder if there are any technical teeth at all in this validation process, or whether it is an essentially beuarocratic check-off process. Can someone familiar with the process give some idea of whether indeed it corresponds to validation or certification procedures in the e.g. NIST sense. Regarding read being non-ANSI, to me the fact that a program uses thir party libraries whether or not they are written in C (or ANSI-C for that matter) does not make the progam a non-conforming program. I don' t see that at all. If that were the case, then virtually no programs are conforming (since they use, for example, graphics libraries), so the concept of conformance is not very useful. Anyway this is just semantics really, when I said that I did not consider the read in Linux to violate the ANSI standard, I was precisely meaning that the standard has nothing to say here. So I think Dan and I agre, read is not defined by th ANSI standard, therefore the ANSI standard has nothing to say on the issue of whether the unusual semantics of read in Linux are are not "correct", whatever that might mean.