Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ucat!pesnta!peora!codas!mtune!jhc
From: jhc@mtune.ATT.COM (Jonathan Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: ioctl() through RFS
Message-ID: <990@mtune.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 14-Jan-87 00:27:33 EST
Article-I.D.: mtune.990
Posted: Wed Jan 14 00:27:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Jan-87 03:30:19 EST
References: <2086@brl-adm.ARPA> <1559@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Reply-To: jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark)
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 18

In article <5505@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes:
>Second, there would seem to still be a problem with ioctls, since the
>third argument to an ioctl is either an int or a struct pointer; the
>int is no problem but how in the world is the struct pointer dealt with?

To put it bluntly, it gets hacked. TC[GS]ET are the problem children.
Can you say switch(arg){ TC[GS]ET?: ... default: ... }?
More fool v7 for not making *all* ioctl()s pass pointers.

>Of course any that are universal (such as struct termio) could be
>mapped correctly on each end since each system knows their structure.

And that's exactly what happens. Ghastly isn't it?
-- 
Jonathan Clark
[NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc

My walk has become rather more silly lately.