Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!fernwood!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.misc
Subject: Re: Can anyone comment on IBM Xenix v2.0?
Keywords: IBM, xenix, 80386
Message-ID: <+Z3BLLD@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 6 May 91 17:40:23 GMT
References: <FEZAY05@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991Apr26.001231.4238@bilver.uucp> <FZ+AP5@xds13.ferranti.com> <1991May4.001619.13489@bilver.uucp>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 11

In article <1991May4.001619.13489@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
> The way I read the manual, ISTRIP should have returned a 7bit that should
> not have 8th bit set.  But when 8th bit was set, so would bits 9 thru 16.
> If c_iflag has ISTRIP set, and it passed the 8th bit wouldn't you consider
> that a compiler bug.?

No, I would consider that a device driver bug. The compiler has nothing to
do with ISTRIP.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"