Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > >   c) have the list of limitations (comparing to BSD) in one bulk;
> 
> > - Not all functions are well tested
> 
> > - Emulating links via extended attributes is not yet incorporated.
> 
> > - None else known.
> 
> I see no reason to include things about which "nothing is known".

Nobody used the phrase "nothing is known". I said "no limitation
(comparing to BSD) is known", i.e. works as designed.
 
> Of course it is easier.  But I do not think that this is a viable
> approach.  Even for the functions with no architecture dependence,
> somebody need to analyse the diffs.  Functions without
> architecture-dependence which were NOT available on OS/2 do not need a
> lot of discussion.

That (i.e. analyzing the differences between e.g. BSD implementation of
log and EMX implementation of log) is  what a group of five or more people
has been doing over the past 2 years. There are a couple of special cases
(mostly involving NaN somehow) where both implementations are slightly
different where BSD implementation is surprisingly more correct according
to Posix standard (some code like  "if (arg is special) return special
value" having been added over the past three or so years, while nothing
happened to EMX), but otherwise the code is not very different (it quite
looks like EMX math library is based on some antique BSD version as
well).
Feel free to restart evaluating those files, if you feel like it,
though...
 
> > Does this huge list help in any way?
> 
> Of course.  Without this list it was absolutely unclear what you were
> talking about...

Is it that much clearer now?

> P.S.  To speed up the discussion, this list should be broken into two
>       parts: functions which were available as functions or macros in
>       EMX, and the rest.

Feel free to do so...

	Regards,
		Stefan