Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:51:08 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Message-Id: <5567-Sat17Mar2001095108+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3AB26D06.10811.1650EF@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: zero fill the eof gap 2
References:  <3AB26D06 DOT 10811 DOT 1650EF AT localhost>
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

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:44:06 -0500
> 
> This version shrinks _write.c by merging some code. And the fill gap code 
> should now work with any handle.

Looks okay to me, thanks.

> I don't see any issues with FSEXTs since any 
> FSEXTs will always be called prior to any of the fill gap support work is 
> done.

That's probably true, but imagine a case where an FSEXT doesn't want
to handle the _write call, but does handle an lseek call.  I think in
this case, the FSEXT will be called via lseek.  Is that a problem?