Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > > > It doesn't. But if you want to be able to use C++, that needs some support
> > > > deep in the internals of EMX.
> > > 
> > > Could you elaborate on this?
> > 
> > Not really, as I don't really know the details, so I'm just guessing.
> 
> Well, I doubt it very much that *any* support is needed.

I had the impression that both EM and Holger implied that such a
thing would be necessary. Might have been a misunderstanding on my part.
 
> > > No, it is not.  At least not with most of them, who do not do any seek.
> > 
> > So why do I need the non-large-file enabled stuff at all?
> 
> ???  If you want to read/read more than 2G, you *must* inform the OS
> about this.  This is what DosOpenL() is about.

What's wrong about _always_ using DosOpenL() (if available) and use 64 bit
values for seek related stuff if most programs do not do any seek anyway?

> > > The situation is not that simple.  Your forgot about linking with old
> > > libraries.
> 
> > For C++ that's routinely broken with every gcc update, so I don't feel
> > a big urge to go through hoops to avoid doing it _once_ for C as well.
> 
> For all the third-party libraries on your system?

Exactly. If I have to do it for the bunch of all the third-party C++
libraries, what's the problem with doing it for a few C libraries that
might be on my system?

> You just can't.
> Some part of them won't recompile - even if you have the source -
> would would not hold for some of them.

Any prominent example of such a library would help me see the problem.
I can't think of any. 

	Regards,
		Stefan