Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!glacier!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: a question on open() and lseek()
Message-ID: <1968@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Apr-86 15:14:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.1968
Posted: Wed Apr 23 15:14:47 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Apr-86 04:07:49 EST
References: <2594@brl-smoke.ARPA> <691@edison.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 17

In article <691@edison.UUCP> jso@edison.UUCP (John Owens) writes:
>>      Is there any reason to use the sequence:
>> 		f = open( file, O_WRONLY );
>> 		lseek( f, 0, L_XTND );
>> 	instead of the single call:
>> 		f = open( file, O_WRONLY | O_APPEND );
>
>Because many versions of UNIX do not support the O_APPEND flag; it's
>a fairly recent innovation.  All versions since v7 (at least that I'm
>aware of) should support the open/lseek method.

How about doing both?  Unixes that do not recognize O_APPEND will probably
ignore it, and unixes that do will ignore the lseek.


-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim