Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: portability
Message-ID: <877@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jan 89 18:38:36 GMT
References: <16573@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <9419@smoke.BRL.MIL> <86097@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 16

> Does _flsbuf need to be rewritten to call __write() or
>something similar

Yes.

>where __write is implemented as:

No.  What I think AT&T plans to do for S5R4, for example, is to *rename*
the "write" routine "_write", and have a mechanism by which the linker
will let "_write" satisfy unresolved references for "write" (or
something like that); this means programs that call "write" and expect
it to be the "write" in the system library will not have to be changed -
but neither will programs that have their own private "write".

(Since "write" is usually implemented as a small assembly-language stub,
"syscall" doesn't enter into it.)