Question about the use of _newlib_flockfile_* in newlib

[Bin.Cheng]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17 10:06, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have two questions on _newlib_flockfile_*.
>> 1.
>> _fputc_r calls _putc_r to do the job, but both of them calls
>> _newlib_flockfile_*. Is it OK? Why if it is.
>
> I'm not quite sure, but I think the reason is that putc and, in analogy,
> _putc_r might be defined as macro.  Newlib doesn't do that by default
> for _putc_r, but target-specific code could.
>
>> 2. In most functions, the macro ORIENT() is guarded by
>> _newlib_flockfile_*, but it is not in _puts_r. Anything special or
>> just missed something?
>
> I had a look into the CVS annotation and it seems that this is not about
> ORIENT, but about the fact that the __sfvwrite_r call in _puts_r was
> never guarded by a flockfile/funlockfile (the predecessor of
> _newlib_flockfile_start/_newlib_flockfile_end).
Yes.
>
> I don't know why, though.  Jeff?

Another problem.
In function _fwrite_r, there is code like:

  _newlib_flockfile_start (fp);
  ORIENT (fp, -1);
  if (__sfvwrite_r (ptr, fp, &uio) == 0)
    {
      _newlib_flockfile_exit (fp);
      return count;
    }
  _newlib_flockfile_end (fp);
  return (n - uio.uio_resid) / size;

I think _newlib_flockfile_exit and _newlib_flockfile_end are
mis-placed with each other, right?

Thanks

--
Best Regards.