Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 06:10:32PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote:
> > > > 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)

EMX being unmaintained.  No other reason.

> and use 64 bit values for seek related stuff if most programs do not
> do any seek anyway?

The argument that "most programs" do something does not help with the
decision of "_always_ using" something else.

> > 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?

For example, if you have 0 "third-party C++", then your argument does
not make sense.  Given that a "C++ library" is an oxymoron anyway, I
do not expect you to have much more than 0.  ;-)

> > 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.

No concrete example comes to my mind - though tar.exe is "very close"
to be an example.  You have the source, but you can't recompile (due
to an orthogonal reason to what we discuss, though).

Yours,
Ilya