AT&T vs. portability

[Henry Spencer]

In article <3125 at homxc.UUCP> dwc at homxc.UUCP (Malaclypse the Elder) writes:
>i would also like to add that i believe henry is again confusing
>kernel portability with application portability...

One has to be careful about terms here, but as I've said before, the kernel
is useless without the standard utilities, so the two are not really separate
problems.  Portability of applications which are not part of "standard Unix"
(whatever that is) is indeed a somewhat different problem, but I didn't
think that had come up.

>... any specific kernel portability problems that the System V
>developers have 'gratuitously' added.

Well, apart from the -1 return on shared-memory system calls, and the
excessive device-dependence of certain parts of the SV kernel, I don't
know of any in particular... but I don't work with that kernel very much.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry at zoo.toronto.edu