Prev: QNX 4.25, raw sockets
Next: compiling C program containing Xutil functions
From: David Schwartz on 15 Feb 2010 16:26
On Feb 15, 1:07 pm, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote:

> David usually refers to anyone who doesn't strive
> for these 'maximal portability' as 'lunatic'. But at least for the
> problems I have to solve, 'portable to everything which can run Linux'
> is sufficient (especially since this also means 'portable to every even
> remotely mainstream implementation of UNIX(*)').

You obviously badly want this to be something that it has nothing
whatsoever to do with. You are the only one who made this about
portability.

DS
From: Andreas H on 15 Feb 2010 16:39
"Rainer Weikusat" <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> And this text simnply doesn't state that code use constructs the
> C-standard doesn't define behaviour for is broken. No matter how hard
> David wants that to be in there, it isn't.

You're right, it doesn't. (Of course we could agree on a definition that
_declares_ a given piece code as "broken" when its behavior is not defined
by the standard ;-)

And David - of course - is right, stating that the _actual_ failure of the
code was a consequence of a) not following the standard and b) an
environment not providing the required non-standard behavior.

So what?

Andreas

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: QNX 4.25, raw sockets
Next: compiling C program containing Xutil functions