On 11/27/18 1:05 AM, Mateusz wrote:
In all documentations about fseeko/fseek that I found it is clear stated that
fseeko works exactly like fseek but it is better and preferable (because of
_off_t instead of long). mingw implementation of fseeko64 looks too much
simplified (it is possible that it was written before _fseeki64).
My question/proposition is:
we declare fseeko64 as
_CRTIMP int __cdecl fseeko64...
for libmsvcrt we add line to fseeki64.c
int __cdecl (*__MINGW_IMP_SYMBOL(fseeko64))(FILE *, _off64_t, int) = _fseeki64;
for libmsvcr90 and newer we add line to def.in file
fseeko64 == _fseeki64
and we delete 'DATA' from original _fseeki64 (libmsvcr90 and 100)
We could do similar for ftello64.
Is that way OK?
I looked it up and it seems that you're right. We shouldn't need a
separated implementation and forwarding to fseeki64 looks like sensible
thing to do. (In fact, I don't even know why we have fseeko64 in the
first place, but removing it now is not an option as there are
applications depending on us exposing those functions). And yeah, in
this case moving it into msvcr* libs and using .def files when possible
seems like the right solution for me.
Thanks,
Jacek
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
