Philip Warner wrote:
>
> I just reread the patch; is it valid to assume fseek and fseeko have the
> same failure modes? Or does the call to 'fseek' actually call fseeko?
The fseek was a typo. It should have been fseeko as you suggested.
CVS updated.
Your idea of using SEEK_SET is good, except I was concerned that the
checkSeek call will move the file pointer. Is that OK? It doesn't seem
appropriate.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
