Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mailrus!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: getch() and getche() in MSC 4.0
Message-ID: <8764@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 26 Oct 88 22:06:33 GMT
References: <10508@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <10523@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <236@shockeye.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <236@shockeye.UUCP> hermit@shockeye.UUCP (Mark Buda) writes:
>How many systems have it which way? (I know. It is unwise to depend on
>"toupper" in portable programs...)

All C implementations should provide toupper() via <ctype.h>.
Whether it is implemented as a macro or a function is the only
significant variable.  Some macro implementations are "unsafe"
(with respect to side-effects in their arguments), so for
maximum portability you should not rely on toupper() being
"safe" even though ANSI C will require that.

Don't use _toupper(), which may not even exist in many implementations.