Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:10:27 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FSEXTs and llseek()
In-Reply-To: <3A571924.6D5F1494@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010107120839.21289T@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Richard Dawe wrote:

> I've just been reading about __FSEXT_llseek. 'offset_t' is described as
> being a 'long long'. This is OK for the input arguments to __FSEXT_llseek,
> but how do you return the offset to the caller? The return value variable
> for the FSEXT handler function is only an 'int'.

Bummer.  I'd say this is a strong argument for backing out FSEXT support 
for llseek: it seems gross to punish all applications with long long 
arithmetics just because someone might want to hook llseek.