Re: Bug#34956: ps formatting problem (fwd)
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:32:24 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 02:55:03PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
>> G'day glibc-ers,
>>
>> I received this email from the upstream guy for procps. I'm not sure
>> if you need to do this or not but here is the patch.
>
>Um, no, I don't think so. I recommend you point him at the fputs(3)
>man page, where it says:
A better place to look is the C standard itself. Quoting
http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/open/n2794/n2794.txt (current draft of the
new standard, 'C9x'):
# 7.19.7.4 The fputs function
#
# Synopsis
#
# [#1]
#
# #include <stdio.h>
# int fputs(const char * restrict s,
# FILE * restrict stream);
#
# Description
#
# [#2] The fputs function writes the string pointed to by s to
# the stream pointed to by stream. The terminating null
# character is not written.
#
# Returns
#
# [#3] The fputs function returns EOF if a write error occurs;
# otherwise it returns a nonnegative value.
Unix98 says the same thing; quoting
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fputs.html:
# NAME
#
# fputs - put a string on a stream
#
# RETURN VALUE
#
# Upon successful completion, fputs() returns a non-negative number.
# Otherwise it returns EOF, sets an error indicator for the stream and
# errno is set to indicate the error.
There is a legitimate argument for this change: compatibility with Solaris
and IRIX, possibly all System V-derived systems. Code that relies on this
behavior is not portable to BSD-derived systems, and glibc has chosen to
follow that lead instead. (In general, glibc chooses BSD behavior when C
and POSIX specify nothing.)
This has come up repeatedly, and Ulrich has said repeatedly that he will not
change the behavior of glibc as distributed upstream.
zw
Reply to: