Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!ukma!ukecc!edward
From: edward@ukecc.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: a question on open() and lseek()
Message-ID: <423@ukecc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Apr-86 17:54:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukecc.423
Posted: Sat Apr 26 17:54:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 21:05:59 EDT
References: <2594@brl-smoke.ARPA> <691@edison.UUCP> <1968@ism780c.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Ky. Engineering Computing Center
Lines: 32
Keywords: ifdef


In article <1968@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
> 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.
>

        #ifdef O_APPEND
                f = open( file, O_WRONLY | O_APPEND );
        #else
                f = open( file, O_WRONLY );
                lseek( f, 0, L_XTND );
        #endif

--
Edward C. Bennett

UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward

Kentucky: The state that is being dragged, kicking and screaming,
          into the 20th century.

"Goodnight M.A."