Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:55:43 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r289863 - head/lib/libc/stdio Message-ID: <562EBD7F.6090009@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2119048.oF1gNjmV7i@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201510240223.t9O2NFiY011536@repo.freebsd.org> <2119048.oF1gNjmV7i@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.10.2015 20:27, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 02:23:15 AM Andrey A. Chernov wrote: >> Author: ache >> Date: Sat Oct 24 02:23:15 2015 >> New Revision: 289863 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/289863 >> >> Log: >> Since no room left in the _flags, reuse __SALC for O_APPEND. >> It helps to remove _fcntl() call from _ftello() and optimize seek position >> calculation in _swrite(). > > You could just add a _flags2 to FILE if that would be cleaner. It should even > be MFC'able without being an ABI change since stdio always allocates FILE > objects internally and we only export pointers to them. Programs do not > allocate them statically. > Thanx, I understand it from your bugzilla answer, but I have a doubt. What if some 3rd party port will use static FILE f; and then &f? Some of ports may deal with FILE internals and I don't know which ones. I prefer rather to not break something there and currently I need only one flag and __SALC is not conflicting since used only with _file = -1 and __SSTR. If you or somebody else will need another flag and be brave enough to add _flags2, this patch can be easily converted. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?562EBD7F.6090009>