home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: rcp6.elan.af.mil!rscernix!danpop
- From: danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: open vs fopen?
- Date: 22 Feb 96 22:29:30 GMT
- Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
- Message-ID: <danpop.825028170@rscernix>
- References: <uEYFxc9nX8WX083yn@mbnet.mb.ca> <4f8qbg$549@chleuasme.francenet.fr> <4gg5nk$he1@salyko.cube.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ues5.cern.ch
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #7 (NOV)
-
- In <4gg5nk$he1@salyko.cube.net> medardus@cube.net (Andreas Karnetzki) writes:
-
- >The main difference between stdio calls and the "low-level" routines
- >(not only under DOS but for Unix too) is the absence of buffering in
- >the low-level functions.
-
- Are you sure? Unix does a lot of "raw" I/O buffering (hence the sync()
- and fsync() system calls) and I'm just wondering what could be the use
- of the BUFFERS parameter of MSDOS (I have a feeling that it isn't
- related to the C stdio library)? How about a certain SMARTDRV.EXE or
- the various disk "doublers"?
-
- Dan
- --
- Dan Pop
- CERN, CN Division
- Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch
- Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
-