Message-ID: <008701c15237$58c3f240$de1c24d5@zephyr>
From: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou AT libertysurf DOT fr>
To: "DJGPP workers" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <10110110332 DOT AA20364 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: _findfirst() patch
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:27:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> These functions look so identical to the current ones to me that it looks
> like _find* could just be a wrapper around the current find* routines.

I examined the wrapper solution and I eventually didn't choose it because:
- the possible problem with the handle (see below),
- while Borland findfirst()'s semantics was the right one for int 21h
function 4eh, I think Watcom's _findfirst() is the right one for int 21h
function 714eh which explicitly makes use of a handle. I found it a bit
convoluted to first hide the handle in a structure and then expose it
through the interface,
- I was told the implementation (wrapper or low-level function) doesn't
really matter.

But I can make the wrapper version if you do want it.

> The return arguments and data structures might be different, but at a
> quick glance I didn't see anything unique to either set of calls.

Maybe the use of the handle: when findfirst() detects no wildcard in the
pathname or findnext() doesn't find any more files, they automatically
release the handle. I don't think that's the semantics of _findfirst() and
_findnext(), given that there is precisely _findclose() to do it (although
the Watcom docs doesn't say anything about that case).

> Making the new routines a wrapper around the current ones would seem
> to minimize low level code (improve maintenance), decrease code size.

A wrapper would certainly minimize low-level code but I don't understand why
it would decrease code size: we are talking about a library and IMHO the
size that matters is the size of code that gets linked to the user program.
Then a wrapper would obviously increase the code size.

--
Eric Botcazou
ebotcazou AT multimania DOT com