Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3E2A9C39.4649EB72@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:38:17 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: lseek() calling llseek()
References:	<200301190925 DOT h0J9PM923192 AT brother DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> 
> According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 lnobody AT delorie DOT com wrote:
> > > -A file lseek handler (@pxref{lseek}).
> > > +A file lseek handler (@pxref{lseek}).  Here for backwards
> > > +compatibility.  Use __FSEXT_llseek instead.  If you have a
> > > +__FSEXT_llseek handler you don't need a __FSEXT_lseek handler as lseek
> > > +calls llseek internally.
> >
> > This is okay, but please put all the symbols, like `lseek' and
> > `__FSEXT_*', in @code.
> 
> You mean like this:
> A file @code{lseek} handler (@pxref{lseek}).  Here for backwards
> > > +compatibility.  Use @code{__FSEXT_llseek} instead.  ...
> 
> That means I'll change almost every line in that file, if I understand
> you correctly, for that first @code is missing in many places.

I think it would be a good idea to fix it, while you are modifying the docs.
 
> > > +  llseek_offset = llseek(handle, offset, whence);
> >
> > Is `llseek' defined to `_llseek' on stubs.h?
> 
> Yes, it's in stubs.h.

It's called __llseek. Not that it makes any difference.

> >   If not, is it Posix?
> 
> No (Linux man page says it Linux specific; it's dated 1995, though).

Draft 7 of the new POSIX standard does not have it either. llseek isn't
needed, since POSIX includes the Large File Summit functionality.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -