[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hugh Dickins) wrote on 02.03.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The SuSv2 quotations, above and in other mail, are just weasly.
The next version is less weasly. Right now it's still a draft; what it
says in draft 5 is this (note the markers which show what's optional to
which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hugh Dickins) wrote on 02.03.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The SuSv2 quotations, above and in other mail, are just weasly.
The next version is less weasly. Right now it's still a draft; what it
says in draft 5 is this (note the markers which show what's optional to
which
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:17:14 GMT, Malcolm Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bert hubert writes:
>> I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
>> was a legitimate way to extend a file
>
>Well it's not SuSv2 standards compliant:
>
>
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dmitry A. Fedorov wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, bert hubert wrote:
>
> > > ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
> > > do so.
> >
> > I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
> > was a legitimate way to
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, bert hubert wrote:
> > ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
> > do so.
>
> I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
> was a legitimate way to extend a file - especially useful in combination
> with
bert hubert writes:
> I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
> was a legitimate way to extend a file
Well it's not SuSv2 standards compliant:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/ftruncate.html
If the file previously was larger than
bert hubert writes:
I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
was a legitimate way to extend a file
Well it's not SuSv2 standards compliant:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/ftruncate.html
If the file previously was larger than
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, bert hubert wrote:
ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
do so.
I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
was a legitimate way to extend a file - especially useful in combination
with mmap().
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dmitry A. Fedorov wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, bert hubert wrote:
ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
do so.
I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
was a legitimate way to extend a file -
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:17:14 GMT, Malcolm Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bert hubert writes:
I would've sworn, based on the fact that I saw people do it, that ftruncate
was a legitimate way to extend a file
Well it's not SuSv2 standards compliant:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:19:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In that case, why was it changed for FAT only? Ext2 will still
> > happily enlarge a file by truncating it.
>
> ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
> do so.
Stevens' example code assumes that it
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:19:35PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
In that case, why was it changed for FAT only? Ext2 will still
happily enlarge a file by truncating it.
ftruncate() and truncate() may extend a file but they are not required to
do so.
Stevens' example code assumes that it does.
12 matches
Mail list logo
