From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200104050938.LAA13094@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: Bug00323, final? (LONG)
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:38:10 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <200104050833.KAA13047@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> from "Martin Stromberg" at Apr 05, 2001 10:33:48 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
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

> 
> Eli said:
> > > From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:33:15 +0200 (MEST)
> > > 
> > > So in Linux fopen() seeks to the end and open does not.
> > 
> > I'd say, let's do the same.  Especially since up till now, fopen
> > seeked to the end in DJGPP as well, and there's no special reason to
> > change that.
> 
> And open did not?

Let me rephrase that. Should open() behave as earlier and also seeking
to the end or should it behave as Linux and not seek to the end?


Right,

						MartinS