The following bytes were arranged on 7 Mar 2013 by alan buckley :
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:23:12 Martin Bazley wrote:
> >
> > The following bytes were arranged on 6 Mar 2013 by Matthew Phillips :
> >
> > I have been wondering about this, with the caveat that I also have not
> > looked at the UnixLib code. This is for wildcard scanning, right? Why
> > would it need to go backwards in those circumstances?
>
> I've had a brief look at the code, and it appears to scan through the
> directory with a subscan of directories used for suffix swapping. So I
> don't think it does go backwards, just into subdirectories and then
> continues on when the subdirectory is finished.
I don't understand. The value returned in R4 doesn't expire. You can
perfectly well take a backup on the stack, recurse into the directory
and continue from where you left off afterwards.
There *is* a known problem with using previous values of R4 when
deleting or otherwise changing the number of files in a directory at the
same time as scanning it, but I sincerely hope it isn't doing that!
--
__<^>__
/ _ _ \ It is written that Geeks shall inherit the Earth.
( ( |_| ) )
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ==========================
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
No comments:
Post a Comment