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: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
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
From: emery@grebyn.com (David Emery)
Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
Date: 1996/04/22
Message-ID: <emery-2204961840230001@line259.nwm.mindlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 150892985
references: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.828757752@schonberg>
 <4kkbk7$hv8@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <dewar.829345812@schonberg>
 <4lgube$dla@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>
organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
Date: 1996-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4lgube$dla@sun001.spd.dsccc.com>,
jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) wrote:

...
> )By the way, which Unices are 100% posix threads compliant (you ssaid you
> )knew).
> 
> Presumably, all of them. Note that the standard does -not- require
> things to be implemented, for an implementation to be compliant. And
> threads are part of the "optional" portion of Posix.
> 
> Mike
> -- 
> ----
> char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> 
> I don't speak for DSC.         <- They make me say that.

OK, let me rephrase the question:

   Which vendors claim conformance to the optional features of POSIX that
   were originally defined in P1003.4a/POSIX.1c (i.e. which vendors claim to
   have IMPLEMENTED POSIX threads), where conformace is defined as
   supporting the appropriate option, and meeting the requirements of
   the standard when the option is supported?

               dave

p.s.  Informally, an implementation which claims to be 'threads compliant'
by stating that the threads option is not supported is pretty bogus!!