News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on C for All. Parent comment

Re:C for All by dralley on Friday March 23, 2018 @11:55AM (#16659352)
counterexample: RedoxOS

Although it's more along the lines of Plan9 - a unix-like system that ignores the bits of POSIX that really suck.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by pjmlp on Friday March 23, 2018 @12:37PM (#16659881)
If it doesn’t support 100% POSIX it isn’t UNIX.

Also how would you make memcpy() safe in a POSIX implementation on Redox?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by IAmLiterallyAB on Friday March 23, 2018 @02:53PM (#16661430)
Almost nothing is 100% POSIX. Most Linux distros aren't. Who cares as long as the important bits are there.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by aidenn0 on Friday March 23, 2018 @02:27PM (#16661167)
Then most linux distributions aren't UNIX, as they do tend to deviate from POSIX in places.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by nine_k on Friday March 23, 2018 @03:07PM (#16661558)
It's GNU/Linux, and GNU = GNU is Not Unix.

So it says Not Unix right on th tin.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by boomlinde on Friday March 23, 2018 @02:52PM (#16661410)
To be perfectly fair, if it isn't UNIX it isn't UNIX.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C for All by Gibbon1 on Friday March 23, 2018 @03:14PM (#16661634)
> Also how would you make memcpy() safe

Easy, don't have memcpy().

[ Parent | on HN ]