Am Montag, den 29.05.2006, 23:30 +0200 schrieb Burkhard Carstens:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 22:47 schrieb Marc Santhoff:
> > Hi,
> >
> > on FreeBSD I use fpOpen, fpIoctl, etc. to drive some generic device.
> > In my porting efforts to win32 I have found the more generic
> > FileOpen, but no equival
On 5/29/06, Alain Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wanted to write a unit that would simulate this file (ioctl.h), but,
this header file contains mainly macros. I do not think that it is
possible to write some Pascal code that would in fact be a macro! If
someone knows if it possible to write
Alain Michaud wrote:
> In the mean time, I calculate the function number "by hand", knowing the
> device number, function number, IO_RW, etc... Or if I use a precedure do
> do this, then this will slow the program down.
AFAIK, these numbers are mostly constants, so you need to do this work
only on
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 22:47 schrieb Marc Santhoff:
> Hi,
>
> on FreeBSD I use fpOpen, fpIoctl, etc. to drive some generic device.
> In my porting efforts to win32 I have found the more generic
> FileOpen, but no equivalent of fpIoctl or it's underlying unix system
> call ioctl().
>
> An old win32
On 29 May 2006, at 23:09, Alain Michaud wrote:
In the mean time, I calculate the function number "by hand",
knowing the
device number, function number, IO_RW, etc... Or if I use a
precedure do
do this, then this will slow the program down.
It should be no problem to use (inline or not)fun
Hi,
I use FpIOctl from "BaseUnix" . My platform is Linux. I do FpOpen then
FpIOCTL. It works!
However:
The kernel 2.6 has a new naming convention for the function number. See
the file: asm/ioctl.h
This file contains many constants and the final call number is assembled
from the direction type,
