The following bytes were arranged on 7 Mar 2013 by alan buckley : > On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:23:12 Martin Bazley wrote: > > > > The following bytes were arranged on 6 Mar 2013 by Matthew Phillips : > > > > I have been wondering about this, with the caveat that I also have not > > looked at the UnixLib code. This is for wildcard scanning, right? Why > > would it need to go backwards in those circumstances? > > I've had a brief look at the code, and it appears to scan through the > directory with a subscan of directories used for suffix swapping. So I > don't think it does go backwards, just into subdirectories and then > continues on when the subdirectory is finished.
I don't understand. The value returned in R4 doesn't expire. You can perfectly well take a backup on the stack, recurse into the directory and continue from where you left off afterwards. There *is* a known problem with using previous values of R4 when deleting or otherwise changing the number of files in a directory at the same time as scanning it, but I sincerely hope it isn't doing that! -- __<^>__ / _ _ \ It is written that Geeks shall inherit the Earth. ( ( |_| ) ) \_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ========================== _______________________________________________ GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
