home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: mail2news.demon.co.uk!genesis.demon.co.uk
- From: Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 96 12:02:30 GMT
- Organization: none
- Message-ID: <828964950snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.828757752@schonberg> <danpop.828819479@rscernix> <dewar.828879781@schonberg> <4k9qhe$65r@solutions.solon.com> <dewar.828936837@schonberg>
- Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: genesis.demon.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
- X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk
-
- In article <dewar.828936837@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu "Robert Dewar" writes:
-
- >Boy, this sure has wandered! THe original issue was the semantic behavior
- >of read. Unlike other unices, in Linux, the bounds check for the read
- >buffer is based on the requested count, rather than the actual count
- >of data bytes read. It is hard to say either approach is right or
- >wrong, but they are different enough to cause portability problems.
-
- Both approaches meet the relevant standards and are correct. Only broken
- code has portability problems, but that's nothing new.
-
- --
- -----------------------------------------
- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
- Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
- -----------------------------------------
-