On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 01:47:09PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> I have just posted a patch to enforce the detection of unseekable streams
> in the fseek() calls [1], please feel free to review it.
Thanks. I have been able to get around 0001 to fix _pgfstat64() and
applied it down
Please, don't top post.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:30 PM Daniel Watzinger <
daniel.watzin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry I couldn't contribute to the discussion in time. The fix of the
> fstat() Win32 port looks good to me. I agree that there's a need for
> multiple fseek() ports to address
I'm sorry I couldn't contribute to the discussion in time. The fix of the
fstat() Win32 port looks good to me. I agree that there's a need for
multiple fseek() ports to address the shortcomings of the MSVC
functionality.
The documentation event states that "on devices incapable of seeking, the
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:49:41PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> WFM, making fseek() behaviour more resilient seems like a good improvement
> overall.
I have not looked in details, but my guess would be to add a
win32seek.c similar to win32stat.c with a port of fseek() that's more
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 2:37 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:12:37AM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> wrote:
> > I've broken the patch in two:
> > 1. fixes the detection of unseekable files in checkSeek(), using logic
> that
> > hopefully is backpatchable,
> > 2. the
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:12:37AM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> I've broken the patch in two:
> 1. fixes the detection of unseekable files in checkSeek(), using logic that
> hopefully is backpatchable,
> 2. the improvements on file type detection for stat() proposed by the OP.
I am
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 1:36 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha <
juanjo.santama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The internal implementation of _pgstat64() is used in quite a few
>>
> places, so we'd better update this part first, IMO, and then
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 8:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> We had better make sure that this does not break again 10260c7, and
> these could not be reproduced with automated tests as they needed a
> Windows terminal. Isn't this issue like the other commit, where the
> automated testing cannot
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:55:24AM +0100, Daniel Watzinger wrote:
> Well, this is embarassing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Some part
> of my company's network infrastruture must have mangled the attachment.
> Both mails were sent using a combination of git format-patch
> and git send-email.
Well, this is embarassing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Some part
of my company's network infrastruture must have mangled the attachment.
Both mails were sent using a combination of git format-patch
and git send-email. However, as this is my first foray into this
email-based workflow, I won't
> On 16 Dec 2022, at 16:09, Daniel Watzinger wrote:
> first-time contributor here. I certainly hope I got the patch
> creation and email workflow right. Let me know if anything can be
> improved as I`m eager to learn.
Welcome! The patch seems to be in binary format or using some form of
Hi there,
first-time contributor here. I certainly hope I got the patch
creation and email workflow right. Let me know if anything can be
improved as I`m eager to learn. Regression tests (check) were
successful on native Win32 MSVC as well as Debian. Here comes the
patch and corresponding
12 matches
Mail list logo
