Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:7009 comp.unix.wizards:8470
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!mtunx!mtuxo!mtgzz!avr
From: avr@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jcm]-a.v.reed)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: KSH portability
Summary: Compiler bugs, not ksh bugs
Message-ID: <4094@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 88 16:37:06 GMT
References: <295@cmtl01.UUCP> <12142@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <631@vsi.UUCP> <10806@steinmetz.ge.com>
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Lines: 15

In article <10806@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes:
> In article <341@alice.marlow.reuters.co.uk> fox@alice.UUCP (Paul Fox) writes:
> >Well, I managed to get it running on Xenix/386 very easily. Xenix/286 was
> >a different kettle of fish. In fact I couldnt spare the time to do the work.
> I ported it to Xenix/286 (2.1.3) by typing "make" and reading a magazine
> for a while. I don't recall any problems at all (this is the ksh-i
> versions, the older versions took some doing).

When ksh was first being ported to the 286 here at AT&T, we found
enough bugs in the Intel/Microsoft C compiler to fill a 7-page
document. Ksh-i includes work-arounds for the known compiler bugs.
However, porting difficulties that result from buggy compilers are
definitely not ksh's fault.

				Adam Reed (mtgzz!avr)