JonY wrote:
How about just forgetting about base XP and require at least SP2 or some
such? Alternatively, use win32api underneath instead, eg
CreateFileW/SetFilePointer.
This requires replacing _all_ of the FILE I/O, not just these two
functions, which is a lot more work to no clear advantage.
On 5.5.2013 18:02, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
>
> Instead I've attached a patch that uses fgetpos/fsetpos. This is
> totally untested (I haven't even checked it compiles), but the idea
> should work.
>
You people do realize these hacks would only be required for 10+ year
old obsolete compiler
Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
> You people do realize these hacks would only be required for 10+ year
> old obsolete compilers?
No, they're required for easy distribution on 12 year old OSes (which,
last I saw, make up almost 40% of Firefox's desktop userbase, and likely
will continue to for some time)
Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> _lseeki64 operates on the underlying file handle, and does not interact
> well with the buffering in stdio streams. I _think_ you can use this
> successfully if you call fflush() beforehand (as this sets FILE::_cnt to
> 0 and FILE::_ptr to FILE::_base). By which I mea
JonY wrote:
> How about just forgetting about base XP and require at least SP2 or some
> such? Alternatively, use win32api underneath instead, eg
> CreateFileW/SetFilePointer.
Even SP2 and SP3 do not have fseeki64/ftelli64. Using Windows API
functions would probably be the cleanest solution, but o
Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Instead I've attached a patch that uses fgetpos/fsetpos. This is
> totally untested (I haven't even checked it compiles), but the idea
> should work.
MSDN says "The pos value is stored in an internal format and is intended
for use only by *fgetpos* and *fsetpos*."
Robert Kausch wrote:
> MSDN says "The pos value is stored in an internal format and is intended
> for use only by *fgetpos* and *fsetpos*."
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/70hdhh4t%28v=vs.80%29.aspx), so
> I don't think it's a good idea to use it this way even if tests
> suggested it wor
On 6.5.2013 0:43, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>> You people do realize these hacks would only be required for 10+ year
>> old obsolete compilers?
> No, they're required for easy distribution on 12 year old OSes (which,
> last I saw, make up almost 40% of Firefox's desktop
