Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-6-28-21:43
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 04:22:43 +0300

Topics:
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-6-22-23:29

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Metcalfe <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-6-22-23:29
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:35:52 +0300

> you know for sure, it will be valuable to people trying to write
> "portable" code for other systems.  I'm writing section 9.  I'm
> dealing with the implementation of these "standards".  But I'd like
> to know if using function F has a good chance of working on system
> XYZ that I know follows standard A... :)
> 
> So, don't put it in the page if you have any doubts (meaning, look it
> up!)
> 
> Anyone else with some matches?
> 	Dan

I have only been using SVID 3, POSIX, BSD 4.3 and ISO 9899.  The
documentation I have been using is Lewine's _POSIX Programmer's Guide_
for POSIX, AT&T's _System V Interface Definition Manual Third Edition
Volume 1_ for SVID 3, NET 2 for BSD 4.3 and various sources for
Standard C.  The function's existence and calling parameters should be
accurate from those sources.  I must confess that I haven't always
checked the returned error codes to see if they match exactly.

Rik suggested in another message that both POSIX and ISO 9899 were 
unnecessary.  The _POSIX Programmer's Guide_ dows include a number of
functions which are annotated as being required by Standard C, but are
not part of POSIX.  div(3) is an example picked entirely at random.

David  

-- 
David Metcalfe		[email-masked]
London, England		[email-masked]

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------