From: Martin Str|mberg Message-Id: <200101312110.WAA04560@father.ludd.luth.se> Subject: Re: Bug000323 In-Reply-To: from Eli Zaretskii at "Jan 31, 2001 11:11:35 am" To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:10:34 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 According to Eli Zaretskii: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Martin Stromberg wrote: > > > > > Index: src/libc/ansi/stdio/doprnt.c > > > > + > > > > + if (fp->_flag & _IOAPPEND) > > > > + { > > > > + if ( llseek(fileno(fp), 0, SEEK_END) == -1 ) > > > > + { > > > > + return (EOF); > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > > > This shouldn't be needed; the flsbuf() call should move to EOF. > > > > Well, I tried without it and it didn't work. > > Are you sure you tried this with a handle which had _IOAPPEND flag set, > and with _flsbuf doing the Right Thing with _IOAPPEND? > > I don't see how could this not work, since _doprnt always calls putc to > output the text, and putc always calls _flsbuf. Well, I'm having a troubles looking at what flags are set. But if you try the test program in test/libc/ansi/stdio/append.c with and without this part you'll see the difference. Any further insights are welcome! Right, MartinS