Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:31:35 -0500
Message-Id: <200012281831.NAA16735@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: pjfarley AT banet DOT net
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20001228132208.025c98f0@pop5.banet.net>
	(pjfarley AT banet DOT net)
Subject: Re: llseek is not in stubs.h (was: Re: Locking fcntl changes
  #2)
References: <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001227141202 DOT 025ac6b0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
 <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001227015917 DOT 00a83050 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
 <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001227141202 DOT 025ac6b0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net> <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001228132208 DOT 025c98f0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> OK, then I am guessing what is needed is to make llseek a stubbed 
> function.  Currently llseek is *not* defined as __llseek, it is defined 
> directly as llseek.  If I interpret your information correctly, the 
> more correct way to have defined llseek would have been to define it as 
> __llseek in llseek.c and to have put "#define llseek  __llseek" into 
> libc/stubs.h, right?

Close.  Add the #define to stubs.h, but leave the function in llseek.c
as llseek() (the define in stubs.h affects that also).  Both llseek.c
and any function using llseek() would need stubs.h.

> Should I do this as a separate patch, prior to finishing my fcntl 
> changes?  Or include it as one of the separate diffs that make up the 
> fcntl change set?

Separate would be better.  It's trivial enough that it can be applied
right away, rather than being held up for reviews of the other parts.