From: mutazilah@gmail.com   
      
   On 21/02/24 17:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote:   
   > Paul Edwards  writes:   
   >> On 21/02/24 10:51, Lew Pitcher wrote:   
   >>> If you are concerned with PDOS/386 being able to use source code written   
   >>> to the POSIX standard,   
   >>   
   >> Not just source - that is easy to deal with.   
   >> The executable.   
   >   
   > Executables won’t have your extra flag unless you’ve personally modified   
   > and recompiled them.   
      
   Yes, that's exactly what I will do. I will start   
   producing executables that have that flag.   
      
   At least MY executables will live up to MY   
   requirements.   
      
   Which is all I'm really after.   
      
   If someone else finds that useful, for the same   
   reasons I find that useful, great.   
      
   If I am alone in the world, that's fine too.   
      
   The latter state could change at a later date   
   though. You never know what will happen a   
   millenia from now.   
      
   >>> which restricts you to using code written specifically for PDOS/386,   
   >>> and   
   >>   
   >> It is only code that uses the new flag that will work nicely on   
   >> PDOS/386, yes.   
   >   
   > How will you modify other syscalls (for example fstat and lseek) to be   
   > play nicely with the newline translation?   
      
   I only intend to run C90-compliant programs   
   (in this case, with a statically-linked C   
   runtime library).   
      
   fstat is not used by PDPCLIB, nor part of the   
   C90 standard.   
      
   lseek is used by PDPCLIB - that's how fseek()   
   is implemented.   
      
   According to C90, fseek() is not expected to   
   behave sensibly on text files.   
      
   And indeed - it won't (on PDOS/386 anyway; when   
   run on Linux it will be fine).   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)