Guido Draheim wrote:
> The "b" is an ansi-C requirement, however there may be some systems
> that are simply not compliant. [...] I just
> found second hand information that some DEC ultrix libc did barf
> at "b".
I did a bit of web digging, and I found first hand information in a
tex package da
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
>
> But the question remains open :)
I certainly recall reports of hosts where fopen (..."wb") did not work.
However, I don't recall which hosts they were.
I briefly looked around the
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> Lars, just to satisfy my curiosity please send me the output
> Earnie> of `cygcheck -s -r -v'.
>
> What's this?
It is a tool developed by the Cygwin team to report on the use
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Akim Demaille writes:
> > Does anybody know whether using fopen (foo, "wb") is portable?
> Extremely doubtful.
The "b" is an ansi-C requirement, however there may be some systems
that are simply not compliant. AFAICS these are quite old, somewhere
in the eighties or so -
On Nov 16, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anybody know whether using fopen (foo, "wb") is portable?
I recall having read about it in ``The C Primer'', when I first
learned C back in 198x (for a small value of x).
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.uni
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> * Do not print an end-of-line at all.
!!! Of course! Thanks!
But the question remains open :)
Akim Demaille writes:
> Does anybody know whether using fopen (foo, "wb") is portable?
Extremely doubtful.
In this particular case you can work around by using open() and write()
and define O_BINARY to be 0 if not defined already.
Other possible approaches:
* Focus on avoiding getting the \r
On 16-Nov-2000, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| --- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Does anybody know whether using fopen (foo, "wb") is portable? Gary
| > uses a test for this, but I don't know if it's really needed. A grep
| > on the packages I have at hand show this:
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> Lars, just to satisfy my curiosity please send me the output
Earnie> of `cygcheck -s -r -v'.
What's this? I'm looking for all the possible uname and the like
which we could include in the config.log. Currently, you have:
This
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:51:05PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> | :
> | : | -[FILE *f = fopen ("conftestval", "w");
> | : | +[FILE *f = fopen ("conftestval", "wb");
> | :
> | : Portable?
> |
> | Not really my cup of tea, but (from fopen(3) on
| On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:51:05PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
| :
| : | -[FILE *f = fopen ("conftestval", "w");
| : | +[FILE *f = fopen ("conftestval", "wb");
| :
| : Portable?
|
| Not really my cup of tea, but (from fopen(3) on Linux):
|
| # The mode string can also include the letter ``b
11 matches
Mail list logo
