From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10108221623.AA18243@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Fseek on STDIN problem on Win 2K
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:23:38 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <9791-Wed22Aug2001191445+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 22, 2001 07:14:45 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> > I don't know the answer to any of these questions - we'll have to
> > write a lot of test programs.
> 
> I think we should.  lseek is too important.

Goal 1: Fix burning W2K issues to get the toolkit working on Win XP.
Everything else is after this.  This is an *OLD* bug.

> > Here's a thought - I've used lseek/read/write on NT with DJGPP 
> > somewhat frequently in the last several years without seeing this
> > problem.  Let's assume for a second this is only seen on handles
> > opened by NT for us, that have the weird "0" behavior.  If we 
> > declared these as pipes (completely valid for NT, and a case we
> > probably need to handle anyway) then no one seeks on STDIN and the
> > problem goes away.
> 
> I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by ``declare these as pipes''.
> Does this mean some changes in the library, or just documentation?

Library change.  We shouldn't be getting magic numbers on pipes.