>>Because the intention of the patch was exactly that you should be able >>to "assume the traditional UNIX/POSIX semantics" for $?. > > > That's a bold claim given that e.g. signals, or a process being stopped, > or the concept of "core dump", may or may not be supported in non-UNIX > (*) operating systems... but I'm not going to go into the feasibility > of that endeavour, what I now care about is the failing test in Tru64 > :-) > > (*) I've learn to mistrust any non-Unix OS that claims that they are > "POSIX". That, unfortunat
Oops, itchy "Send" finger. I meant to say ... that, unfortunately, is most often wishful thinking (at best), marketdroidese ticking-off-features, or a blatant lie (at worst). Vendors will say that "yeah, we have POSIX", but when you ask what do they have on that, really, they they start diverting the discussion or say "we'll ask the engineering and we'll come back to you on that". If e.g. your process model, or security model, or filesystem, or something, is simply Very Different (not necessarily worse, just different), being POSIX compliant is non-trivial.
