Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <35E43C36.FE7E2EBC@cartsys.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:47:50 -0700
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Patch to mkdoc and re: portability information
References: <199808251741 DOT NAA10295 AT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Hmm.  So `dos' would mean "this is a raw DOS call", rather than
> > "this function behaves in the same way on djgpp as it does on other
> > DOS compilers".
> 
> No, "dos" means it does what you'd expect a dos compiler to do, and
> most dos compilers hook right into the dos interrupts.

The case that I'm wondering about are the non-DOS-specific functions. 
For example, suppose somebody wants to use `stat' in a program which
they plan to port to Borland C.  They will want information on `stat's
portability to other DOS compilers.

Am I misunderstanding you?  It sounds vaguely like you're talking about
portability issues when porting *from* other compilers.  My intent was
for this project to document portability issues for programs written
with DJGPP, so that someone writing a new program can have some idea how
to keep their code portable, although they have no specific port
planned.  Somebody porting *to* DJGPP has all of DJGPP's usual docs,
which should be sufficient.


-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com