manual: Update compatibility note on flushing of line-oriented files

Operation systems which represent text files in a line-oriented
fashion (and not as byte streams with a character sequence reserved
for line termination) logically cannot flush a buffer without
also creating a terminated line.

Update this portability note and move it to the Binary Streams
section.  Add another related compatibility concern, too.

diff --git a/manual/stdio.texi b/manual/stdio.texi
index 747b1abf457d3f2f16ad0fcd325d4d8ad2e290e9..01b9f478dd01bbea86cb10aae9bcafe4218cceaa 100644 (file)
--- a/manual/stdio.texi
+++ b/manual/stdio.texi
@@ -4346,6 +4346,18 @@ fail to handle lines more than 254 characters long (including the
 terminating newline character).
 @cindex lines (in a text file)
 
+@item
+If the system does not use POSIX-style in-band signalling to indicate
+line termination, it can be impossibe to write anything to a text stream
+without adding a line terminator.  As a result, flushing a text stream
+(by calling @code{fflush}, for example) may produce a logical line
+terminator even if no @code{'\n'} character was written by the program.
+
+@item
+Text files may contain lines that embed @code{'\n'} characters that are
+not treated as line terminators by the system.  C programs cannot read
+such text files reliably using the @file{stdio.h} facilities.
+
 @item
 On some systems, text files can contain only printing characters,
 horizontal tab characters, and newlines, and so text streams may not
@@ -4838,12 +4850,6 @@ currently opened.
 This function is declared in the @file{stdio_ext.h} header.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@strong{Compatibility Note:} Some brain-damaged operating systems have
-been known to be so thoroughly fixated on line-oriented input and output
-that flushing a line buffered stream causes a newline to be written!
-Fortunately, this ``feature'' seems to be becoming less common.  You do
-not need to worry about this with @theglibc{}.
-
 In some situations it might be useful to not flush the output pending
 for a stream but instead simply forget it.  If transmission is costly
 and the output is not needed anymore this is valid reasoning.  In this