Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: UNIX semantics do permit full support for asynchronous I/O
Message-ID: <3658@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 2 Sep 90 05:47:07 GMT
References: <27619@nuchat.UUCP> <960022@hpcljms.HP.COM>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 11

In article <960022@hpcljms.HP.COM>, brians@hpcljms.HP.COM (Brian Sullivan) writes:
>   Well,  I suspect that this solution will not work with most C programs.
> Why, because most of the time read(2) and write(2) are called with a
> buffer that is an auto-variable or stack allocated.

Surely, most of the time read(2) and write(2) are called by the <stdio>
implementation, and _that_ uses heap-allocated buffers.  You _can_ make
a stdio stream use a stack-allocated buffer, but it requires an explicit
call to setbuf() or one of its relatives.
-- 
You can lie with statistics ... but not to a statistician.