Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:27:47 +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: <200102112012.VAA19133@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010212092729.12969E@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 Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > Ah, I see why.  The test program prints a very short string and then
> > closes the file.  So the entire text is buffered inside the FILE
> > object when fclose is called, and it is up to fclose to flush it.
> > fclose calls fflush, but fflush doesn't go through _fslbuf, it calls
> > _write directly.  (I don't remember why, but it probably has a good
> > reason.)
> > 
> > Solution: add llseek to fflush, and you solved two problems: no need
> > for llseek in _doprnt, and a bug with writing the last portion of the
> > data from fflush is also squashed ;-)
> 
> Ok. I found the bug. Now it works without changing fflush(). Should
> that part still be added you think?

Kinda hard to tell without knowing what bug did you find and how did
you correct it.  For example, does the corrected code make fflush
write at the end of the file?