Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 13:11:39 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Portability section for libc docs
In-Reply-To: <199802270505.AAA23577@delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980301131058.13547F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, DJ Delorie wrote:

> I think "dos" doesn't make sense; it's not a compiler.

I think most DOS compilers are so similar in the contents of their C
libraries (they all emulate MSC), that it is usually enough to have
one category.  The intent is to tell people what is a de-facto
standard across DOS C compilers.

> "unix" is too vague, and ansi/posix should cover it.

I disagree.  There are many functions which are non-Posix but present
on most Unix systems.

> "windows" is also not a compiler.

See the comment about "dos", above.

> Maybe add cygwin?

AFAIK, Cygwin is a synonym to Posix.  Their library doesn't include
anything beyond that.