Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:16:00 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
cc: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>,
        George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
In-Reply-To: <199802141800.KAA08409@mailhost2.cac.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980215131519.27889F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Ned Ulbricht wrote:

> Eli suggests MS-DOS/MS-Windows while George suggests just DOS for 
> column heads.  Note that one of the differences is whether the conio 
> functions are supported (they aren't for native Win3.1 programs 
> although a DOS box can use them).

That's not what I meant.  MS-Windows compilers (such as MSVC++) do
have ANSI- and POSIX-compatible functions besides console I/O.  Many
of these are broken, and I think people should be aware of the related
problems if they plan to be able to port their code to Windows.

> That is unless we just go with Eli's suggestion that anything MS has
> is by definition MS-DOS compatible--but then how would we know that
> Borland uses a screwy header file for instance?

IMHO, any reasonable effort will wind up listing problems which people
have actually bumped into (otherwise, they won't remember them).  If
somebody had a traumatic experience with a Borland header, they will
speak up.  Otherwise, there's no issue in not mentioning them.