Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 08:08:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: lseek() calling llseek()
In-Reply-To: <200301181041.h0IAfYc20680@brother.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1030119080546.7077C-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 Sat, 18 Jan 2003 lnobody AT delorie DOT com wrote:

> -A file lseek handler (@pxref{lseek}).
> +A file lseek handler (@pxref{lseek}).  Here for backwards
> +compatibility.  Use __FSEXT_llseek instead.  If you have a
> +__FSEXT_llseek handler you don't need a __FSEXT_lseek handler as lseek
> +calls llseek internally.

This is okay, but please put all the symbols, like `lseek' and 
`__FSEXT_*', in @code.
> +  llseek_offset = llseek(handle, offset, whence);

Is `llseek' defined to `_llseek' on stubs.h?  If not, is it Posix?  If 
neither of these is true, we are polluting the Posix namespace, and need 
to modify stubs.h to avoid that.

Otherwise, fine with me, provided you make the return code more 
predictable, as you suggested in your followup.