7 ms·
Correct -- it would be nice if the glibc maintainers would reconsider their opinion of supporting the optional Annex K functionality. There is definitely user d
by AaronBallman 6y ago
Correct -- it would be nice if the glibc maintainers would reconsider their opinion of supporting the optional Annex K functionality. There is definitely user demand for the feature.
- beefhash 6y agoAnd every BSD out there. And whatever it is that macOS does. Microsoft looks to be the outlier to me.
- loeg 6y agoMicrosoft does not even implement Annex K. > Microsoft Visual Studio implements an early version of the APIs. However, the implementation is incomplete and conforms neither to C11 nor to the original TR 24731-1. > As a result of the numerous deviations from the specification the Microsoft implementation cannot be considered conforming or portable. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm
- saagarjha 6y agomacOS is POSIX compliant.
- eqvinox 6y ago> rseacord 22 minutes ago [-] > The C Committee has taken two votes on this, and in each case, the committee has been equally divided. Without a consensus to change the standard, the status quo wins. The fact that it has only survived on status quo is a pretty crass hint that things aren't well with Annex K.