[En-Nut-Discussion] Why does the internal libc defines a _write() and _read() instead of write() and read()?
harald.kipp at egnite.de
Tue Oct 13 19:09:08 CEST 2015
On 29.09.2015 23:27, Ole Reinhardt wrote:
> I just wondered, why the Nut/OS implementation of write() and read() is
> called _write() and _read()?
C89 doesn't include these low level functions. On the other hand the
Nut/OS implementation were not fully Posix compliant. So it was decided
to provide _open, _read, _write etc. to distinguish them from the
standard. Following Microsoft, btw.
Today I regret this decision. What boggles me most is the fact, that
others followed my "example" and, for example, implemented struct _tm.
Sigh, the presence of trash attracts additional dumping.
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion