Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:22:15 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: new pipe patch
In-Reply-To: <3ABE14DA.13338.10FF953@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010326092003.4400B-100000@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, 25 Mar 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> The popen( ) function shall execute the command specified by the string 
> command. It creates a pipe between the calling program and the executed 
> command, and returns a pointer to a stream that can be used to either read 
> from or write to the pipe.
> 
> My interpreation of the paragraph is that seeks aren't allowed just like with 
> its unbuffered cousin pipe().

Yes, I agree.  But I'd like to see if we don't break any existing code.

Could people please grep whatever DJGPP-related sources they have on 
their machines, including ports, and see if they can find even a single 
case where popen is used and its FILE object is fseek'ed or lseek'ed?

TIA