Re: FILE I/O

Article View: comp.sys.atari.st

Article #29132

#29132

From: jdn
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1987 16:21

18 lines
1258 bytes

In article <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes:
> 
> The raw GEMDOS functions are faster (due to
> no buffering) but you should set up your own buffering.  

I don't quite understand this.  If I have to do my own buffering with
Fread, while fread does the buffering for me, then the fread call
appears easier to use.  And since the application has to buffer Fread
calls itself, any speed advantage of Fread (due to no buffering!) is
negated. So I can see no advantage to the Fread.

From your posting, I gather that you use the capital F's rather than the
small f's.  Moshe, could you please clarify this.

Jonathan Nagy
{ihnp4|allegra|harvard}!homxc!jdn
(201) 615-4349

Technical Details

Message-ID: <2064@homxc.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!homxc!jdn

References: <2023@homxc.UUCP> <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!homxc!jdn
From: jdn@homxc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: FILE I/O
Message-ID: <2064@homxc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 11:21:38 EST
Article-I.D.: homxc.2064
Posted: Mon Nov  9 11:21:38 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 23:32:05 EST
References: <2023@homxc.UUCP> <2862@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 18
Keywords: C, Fseek, fseek

Reply to Parent Message