home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: user2.mnsinc.com!huang
- From: huang@mnsinc.com (Szu-Wen Huang)
- 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)
- Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Date: 8 Apr 1996 16:47:21 GMT
- Organization: Monumental Network Systems
- Message-ID: <4kbfup$2vd@news1.mnsinc.com>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.828757752@schonberg> <danpop.828819479@rscernix> <dewar.828879781@schonberg> <4k9qhe$65r@solutions.solon.com> <dewar.828936837@schonberg> <828964950snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: user2.mnsinc.com
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Lawrence Kirby (fred@genesis.demon.co.uk) wrote:
- : 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.
-
- Shouldn't true portability mean that even bugs are cross-platform and
- fail reliably? ;)
-