Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:26:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
In-Reply-To: <199802230250.SAA20944@adit.ap.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980223061658.517D-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> I like the idea proposed earlier where the Unix column will contain a simple
> "yes" or "no" telling whether, *in general*, the function is available on
> Unix systems. I think it should usually be obvious what the answer to that
> will be. Where there are differences between Unix flavors, an explicit note
> will say so.

We get back to the question: "Who is writing this information?".  The only
information that everybody can supply is the ANSI/POSIX information, based
upon djgpp's header files.  Other information can only be added by people
with access to the relevant compilers.  Perhaps it would be best to begin
by simply adding the ANSI/POSIX information, and adding the other
information to the .txh files in a second pass, done by people with access
to each compiler.

Using the macros I just suggested this could be fairly simple to automate
(search for @node <function>, then find the next @portability_end, then
add the relevant information before that line).

Perhaps we should find out how many people will be working on this fairly
soon, though, and which systems they can compare with.

-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk