On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:12:45 -0600, Jeff wrote:
On 09/24/2012 06:08 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Second, shouldn't adjust_wide_data's block comment mention its return
value? Something as simple as "returns zero upon success and a
nonzero value in the event of a failure" should probably be
sufficient.
Done.
I'm a bit confused by the comment at the bottom of adjust_wide_data;
it says:
+ /* Now seek to the end of the read buffer. */
+ fp->_wide_data->_IO_read_ptr = fp->_wide_data->_IO_read_end;
Is seeking to the end of the read buffer really the right thing to do
here? I realize we're not actually seeking to the end of the buffer,
that's handled at the "dumb" label within _IO_wfile_seekoff. So it
seems to me the comment could be written a bit better.
Fixed the comment. I had meant to say that we seek to the read_end to
get the file position to the desired place.
You should also mention that 14543 is fixed in the NEWS file.
I'll do this when I commit - this is always a pain to merge into
mainline.
Updated patch attached. Does this look OK to commit?