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.