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: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,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: 1996/04/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146545488 references: <828964950snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <4kcein$mev@solutions.solon.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I said >>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. Peter said >If it is not specified, it's undefined. At least, that's how C does it; >no guarantees for POSIX. Robert replies OK, "it" here is any specification of how long the buffer should be. So Peter considers it undefined, in which case *any* call to read is undefined. Actually I completely agree, if the spec of a routine is incomplete or imprecise, the routine cannot be called without generating undefined behavior. But in the absence of Kazimir to tell us the "unwritten" rules, isn't it just possible that this *might* lead to portability problems :-) Of course by Peter's rules, we can't call read at all :-) Peter do you have SPEC1170, I assume you must have a copy, so can you see there if the spec is any more illuminating?