Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Function prototypes versus open()
Message-ID: <5954@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4-Jun-87 11:14:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5954
Posted: Thu Jun  4 11:14:18 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 07:51:28 EDT
References: <18346@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8042@utzoo.UUCP> <2210@hoptoad.uucp> <5927@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2242@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 21

In article <2242@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>This means that such a compiler could not be compatibly used on a Unix
>system, even though it meets all the requirements of the ANSI C standard,

I think a more precise statement would be:
	Much existing code from UNIX systems would have to be changed
	(at least to the extent of #including a header that declares
	the open() function properly) in order to successfully work
	under a C implementation that (for perhaps good and sufficient
	reason) uses a different function linkage for a fixed versus
	a variable number of arguments.

It is important to note that MOST UNIX C implementations will not have
this problem.

This is just a fact of life for some machine architectures.

It may also be worth noting that much UNIX software is atrociously
written and wouldn't port well without considerable effort anyway.
Several people have been working on improving this situation; they
ought to insert #include <fcntl.h> as required while they're at it.