From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Paul Edwards  writes:   
   > Cygwin is a correct example, I believe.   
   >   
   > And Cygwin doesn't change the behavior of Linux ELF   
   > executables either.   
      
   AFAIK it can’t run them at all, so I don’t know why that would be   
   relevant.   
      
   > Nor does it change the behavior of existing POSIX source code.   
      
   Your use case was C90 programs, not POSIX programs, last time you   
   mentioned it. Has that changed now?   
      
   >> If, in fact, you don’t want to add translation to read() and write()   
   > I do.   
      
   OK, so an ELF executable (that had been modified to use your   
   hypothetical O_TEXT flag) would get newline translation from read() and   
   write() when run on your toy OS, but not when run on a real Linux   
   kernel. There’s the change in behavior.   
      
   At any rate we’re back to the issue that you say want to add   
   Cygwin-style translation to read() and write(), but you also say that   
   you will only be running programs written in C90, which doesn’t have   
   open(), so nothing will ever pass O_TEXT and the translation will never   
   be activated.   
      
   > I guess it's just a semantic debate as to whether this constitutes a   
   > change in behavior.   
      
   This would go a lot quicker if you didn’t engage in “semantic debates”.   
      
   --   
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)