Re: Line-ending for IFS test stream file

Hi Michael

I had a suspicion that the ftruncate utility outputs only CRs or LFs - one of the other - so the documentation might be elsewhere as to this behavior. The utility is found in Unix and Linux and has been around for a long time,. so there is expected behavior. Not sure if it can be managed with options.

I did run across some hits that suggest that something like this is the case. I will be curious to hear IBM's answer.

Cheers
Vern

On 6/4/2015 6:44 AM, MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I'm opening a PMR as the documentation on the ftruncate() doesn't say
anything about line-ending characters being modified. I don't believe it's
"working as designed." In the meantime, I'll do a work around--either
Buck's suggestion or I have one other thing to try first. I'll post back
to the list with whatever works (or doesn't).

I can empathize with your prejudice against the APIs. They can be very
obscure and the documentation takes a while to get used to. But I've had
such good success with them over the years building a lot of great
utilities and handling various processes.

Thanks for all the suggestions and advice,
Michael Quigley
Computer Services
The Way International
www.TheWay.org

"MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 06/03/2015
05:30:20 PM:

----- Message from John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx> on Wed, 3
Jun 2015 17:15:00 -0400 -----

To:

Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:

Re: Line-ending for IFS test stream file

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM, <MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, the LF characters are missing (removed) at the end of every line.

So

if there's 15 lines of data, the file is shortened an extra 15 bytes

and

all the <CRLF> end-of-record delimiters are now simply <CR>. Strange,

eh?

Yeah, that's strange.

It does reinforce my prejudice against using IBM system APIs for
stream file processing. I think my biggest blind spot in this area is
that I keep forgetting about Qshell and PASE. Unix-based tools were
designed specifically for this kind of stuff, and Buck points out a
really good example of this.

(I was a very happy Unix user and fan in college. I think I never took
Qshell seriously because (1) I was underexposed to it, and (2) there
were enough niggling differences between it and the Unix shells I was
used to that I never fully embraced it. And, if I'm being honest with
myself, I never really mastered Unix one-liners even in genuine Unix
environments.)

John Y.