Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From:	Yedema <yedema AT natlab DOT research DOT philips DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
Message-ID:	<uqvyazbzo0s.fsf@natlab.research.philips.com>
Sender:	yedema AT isthp1
Cc:	eldredge AT ap DOT net
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:18:27 GMT
Lines:	45
References:	<199802110533 DOT VAA06002 AT adit DOT ap DOT net>
Organization:	Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net> writes:

> Ned Ulbricht wrote:
> >Obviously there's not a problem with relying on public domain
> >references when they're relevent and available. And certain functions
> >can just be declared non-portable (djgpp only or gcc only) by fiat. But
> >to list something as portable will usually require relying on sources
> >which are not in the public domain--unless we test it ourselves. 
> Are you saying there is a legal problem with saying "Microsoft C supports
> `int86'" if we have gleaned that from reading Microsoft documentation? That
> seems hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible. Perhaps we could avoid
> specifically mentioning the competition and say, "`int86' is available on
> other DOS compilers"? Any other thoughts here?
It might not be a bad idea to just ask them, I mean, this information isn't 
really top-secret. And it might even help them, they won't get so many 
questions about why stuff doesn't work when ported to their compiler.
> 
> Eli wrote:
> >You don't need the standards, it is enough to look into the DJGPP
> >headers.
> Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Of course, those were made by people who
> knew what standards supported what features, so I can avoid doing all that
> work again.
Well, at my work I have got an ANSI-standard documentation, obviously I can't 
work on the docs there (besided the copyright thingy), and honoustly I don't
feel like writing those docs. I can, however, verify things, that would not go
against the copyright, would it?
> 
> George wrote:
> >There are a lot of functions in the docs though; perhaps they should
> >be `farmed out' to volunteers?
> Any volunteers? :)
> I'm not sure what would be the best way to divide it: per-function,
> per-platform, ?? In any case, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Another thing, It would be a big help if the docs would be put in a dos-tsr 
help-program, like norton guides or helppc. I `ported' the info pages that 
come with djgpp to the norton guides. Prehaps that's useful? There are several 
bugs in it though (in the info pages too). 
> 

-- 
    Yedema, ing. W.F.D.              
    Philips Research Laboratories
    Building WL 1 113, Prof. Holstlaan 4, 5656 AA Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Phone: +31-40-743938         E-mail: yedema AT natlab DOT research DOT philips DOT com

- Raw text -