home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Usenet 1994 January
/
usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso
/
sources
/
std_unix
/
v21
/
032
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1990-12-05
|
2KB
From uucp@tic.com Thu Aug 16 09:36:45 1990
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA25379; Thu, 16 Aug 90 09:36:45 -0400
Posted-Date: 15 Aug 90 13:18:27 GMT
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.70)
id AA09180; Thu, 16 Aug 90 08:36:42 -0500
Received: by longway.tic.com (4.22/tic.1.2)
id AA05121; Thu, 16 Aug 90 08:32:32 cdt
From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: POSIX vs SVID
Message-Id: <430@usenix.ORG>
References: <11188@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Date: 15 Aug 90 13:18:27 GMT
Apparently-To: std-unix-archive@uunet.uu.net
From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil>
In article <11188@cs.utexas.edu> From: Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com
>Question: Is there anything wrong with this? If I write a strictly
>conforming application, can I include <unistd.h> for SVID
>compatibility even if POSIX does not require it? Is there any
>problem with including "extra" header files (other than the obvious
>restrictions on the namespace)?
Yes, there can be a problem any time an extra header is included,
if there is no guarantee as to the identifiers that the header may
usurp. No POSIX implementation can require an application to use
any facilities beyond what the POSIX standard requires for the
application, so if in fact UNIX System V were to need the extra
header (which it doesn't), it would not be POSIX compliant. Note
that the means by which a POSIX-conforming compilation/execution
environment is obtained on your system may be nonobvious..
Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 32