Re: [RFC] fseek, an alternative implementation (PR22359)

[Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>]

François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> > I don't like the idea of introducing new extensions.  If we do this, we
> > can't ever implement a g77 compatible solution without going to extra
> > lengths, such as command line flags.  I'd rather we keep waiting until
> > someone needs this badly enough that they implement it in a way
> > compatible with g77.
>
> And what about having a FSEEK with neither status flag nor optional
> label. That way, it's still better than what we currently have, and
> we're not introducing a new extension.

That sounds like the right way to proceed.

Thanks,
- Tobi