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: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,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: 1996/04/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146404663 references: <4k9qhe$65r@solutions.solon.com> <828964950snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: With respect to read (Linux unusual behavior), Lawrence said "Both approaches meet the relevant standards and are correct. Only broken code has portability problems, but that's nothing new." Can you quote the relevant standard. No description of read I ever saw was detailed or precise enough to say what the requirements on the caller are. Lots of code is portable and broken, lots of code is (deliberately) non-portable and definitely not broken. Lots of code is carefully written to be portable, but runs into bugs in supposedly conforming implementations. Lots of code uses features that are useful, but for which no standard exists, and hence may run into portability problems. Equating portability with non-brokenness in general is naive. Even in an environment with a definite standard, writing portable code requires a lot more than just adhering to the letter of the standard!