Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:25:08 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug000323
In-Reply-To: <200101312110.WAA04560@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010201132358.15009D@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 Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > > > > +
> > > > > +  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.

Could you please post the diffs for flsbuf.c again?  I didn't save that 
at the time, and I cannot find it in mail-archives, for some reason.