is struct utimbuf in the standard sys/types.h?

[buck at siswat.lonestar.org]

From:  buck at siswat.uucp

> From:  Donn Terry <donn at hpfcrn.fc.hp.com>

> (More to "is struct utimbuf...")
> 
> Don Lewine's posting reminded me (I can't remember EVERYTHING) about
> the issue of additional fields in structures.  All my comments in my
> previous posting stand, but apply primarily to structures that are
> filled in (at least initially) by the system.  For ones that are 
> sent to the system, created from "nowhere", there is an additional
> problem, that of "how can a portable application know to/how to 
> initialize additional (vendor-defined) fields?".
> 
> The solution in the 1990 revision is to prohibit additional fields
> for the structures like that.  (A vendor is then required to provide
> a new call to set microseconds, or whatever.)
> 
> It was agreed that this was not the most desireable solution, but it
> was the only one that worked.

I am having some difficulty following the above.  How can a portable
application do anything to vendor-defined fields?  Isn't the
application non-portable as soon as it does anything (read or write)
to a vendor-defined field?

Is this explained by "strictly conforming" vs. "conforming"?

Thanks,

---
A. Lester Buck     buck at siswat.lonestar.org  ...!texbell!moray!siswat!buck



Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 13