home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: pangea.Stanford.EDU!karish
- From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
- 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: 13 Apr 1996 09:08:39 GMT
- Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
- Message-ID: <4knqun$ga1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.828846122@schonberg> <4kkdv4$ik4@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <dewar.829345962@schonberg>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu
-
- In article <dewar.829345962@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
- >Of course GCC has a much more agressive view of portability, but it
- >certainly would be nice to see more standardization here,
-
- I don't understand. Do you have portability problems when you use
- gcc in ANSI mode?
-
- >and for
- >example, it sure would be nice if everyone's make utility implemented
- >at least vaguely the same semantics!
-
- POSIX.2 specifies a well-defined set of semantics for make. XPG4
- picks up the POSIX.2 spec and adds some extensions that are also
- guaranteed to be supported on conforming systems (see www.xopen.co.uk
- for a list; look for XPG4 BASE 95 branded products).
-
- That doesn't solve the problem of having to import code whose
- maintainers choose to use extensions from, for example, gnu make,
- BSD make, or imake. If you're maintaining a diverse code base
- you may have to keep several versions of make on hand. At least
- for these examples the source is readily available.
- --
-
- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
- (415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
-