This is the mail archive of the newlib@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the newlib project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)

To: Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov at syntrex dot com>
Subject: Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:50:11 -0400
Cc: newlib at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <20011021225629.17478.qmail@foolabs.com> <20011022150648.B10383@redhat.com> <3BD556FE.46350849@syntrex.com> <20011023141012.G31068@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BD59914.780FD423@syntrex.com> <20011023125049.A22558@redhat.com> <3BD5F576.8FC68318@cygnus.com> <20011023230703.A26423@redhat.com> <20011023232338.A29008@redhat.com> <3BD699FC.880CC30E@syntrex.com>

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 12:37:48PM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>Again the question is does this optimization actually do something which
>is worth to have it in the source three ?  :)

IMO, it makes sense for the sources to be as close to the original
version as possible.  So, if the optimization exists in FreeBSD, I think
it should remain in newlib.  It just makes things easier to decipher the
next time we have to compare the two.

cgf

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: Pavel Tsekov

References:
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: J. Johnston
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: 1.3.3-2: fseek fails on multiples of 1024 (binary mode)
  - From: Pavel Tsekov

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]