"Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes: > I was looking at the code of our utilities and few things are unclear to me. > We are struggling for portability of the code, but does it mean that we are > struggling for being a portable code donor? > > By portable code donor I mean to use the oldest possible C (pre-)standard > with code variations for e.g. freebsd that was old already in 1996 and > I can't see the bug in the mentioned libc function in FreeBSD's SVN > in the initial revision from 1994 (what was their code before that?) > (memchr(3) usage note in strip_nuls() from ksh/misc.c). My quick reaction is that rototilling for the sake of modernity when there is nothing demonstrably wrong isn't a good idea. But things may be messy enough that there is some safety to be gained.
Attachment:
pgp2zPhJ4d9z7.pgp
Description: PGP signature