Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:54:42 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: bde@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Implementation errors in strtol() Message-ID: <20050120235441.GA72814@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <m3acr31yhc.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <20050120192324.GA30862@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20050120205501.GA69123@nagual.pp.ru> <20050120211449.GC30862@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20050120214406.GA70088@nagual.pp.ru> <20050120222137.GE30862@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20050120224017.GA71573@nagual.pp.ru> <m3acr31yhc.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > > This is just their intehtions explanation, not excuse. If several > > standards are in contradiction, POSIX vote is final. It may surprise you, > > but it covers and changes lots of cases comparing to minimalistic C > > standard. Such additions/changes are specially marked with different color > > (gray). > > I do not have a place of discovery handy, but wasn't POSIX explicitly > deferring in to the C standard and giving it precedence for any > conflicts between the C standard library and POSIX? What really happens is more complex thing. POSIX tries to follow C standard as close as possible. If POSIX makes an addition not mentioned in the relatively minimalistic C or SUS standards (because such case even was not considered there but vital enough to system level), this addition not contradicts with C standard _directly_ i.e. not opposite it, but from now two example cases handled equaly by minimalistic standards handled now differently by POSIX due to additional (non-described previously) treatement. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050120235441.GA72814>