From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<199901301145.MAA27223@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	llseek() name?
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:45:28 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

So what should the new seek() be called?

Eli once said:
>   - You probably cannot change the definition of off_t (to something
>     wider than 32 bits) easily without breaking too many things.  So a
>     new function, like _llseek (a-la Linux) or something like that is
>     probably in order.  I suggest to make sure _llseek falls back to
>     lseek with non-FAT32 drives, so that libc functions could use it
>     internally without too much logic involved.

For those who know about the mess with the extended seek() in glibc2,
there's something we shouldn't mimic. They didn't prototype it but
autoconf detected it and C defaults to int if no prototype...

Is the name _llseek() good enough?


Scooter, No Time to Chill,

							MartinS

- Raw text -