First off I’d like to say this is not a flame, I think you deserve thanks for
finding and fixing a bug in SDL, but there are some good reasons why the API
isn’t going to change any time soon.
It is broken… there is no way of finding out if an error occurred. Or
if the end of a buffer/file was reached.
No way besides SDL_RWseek, you mean.
Cant support large files. I’d say that’s flawed.
Try this program:
Under any 32-bit compiler I’ve ever seen, those are all 4 bytes – standard
integers. So, no long file support via stdio under a 32-bit OS. SDL
would need proprietary backends for the various UNIX flavors, Windows 9x,
Windows NT, Windows CE, MacOS 9, MacOS X, etc, etc, etc. to support long
files properly – essentially reimplimenting stdio in 64-bit. Which is not a
bad idea, I’d love to have an SDL_rwscanf, but probably more work than you
There are several bugs or potential problems. I fixed the
bugs… and got rid of some of those core flaws. Not my problem nor
fault the fix breaks things.
It’s the “…and got rid of some of those core flaws” thing that’s the
problem. That’s unfortunately not backwards compatible, anything that used
SDL_RWops would need a recompile. You might be able to convince the devs to
put it in SDL1.3.
No one seems to care anyway… as no one felt the need to further discuss
the issue or incorporate my fixes.
I was waiting for an official word from the devs, myself. Maybye they just
missed it. People aren’t biting on my suggestions of incoroporating my
audio-input support directly into SDL either, but I don’t really think that’s
malice anyone’s part, and it doesn’t make the existing audio support
The fixes would take 2 minutes to incorporate even if you had to manually
look into the patch and replace only the bug fixes.
Longer than 2 minutes. That’s a big patch and a small bugfix, I haven’t
yet been able to untangle them.
Nor did anyone ask me to submit a patch with just the fixes.
Could you do so now, please? I think the devs would be a lot more likely to
use it if it fixed the bug without breaking the API, and I’d LOVE to see that
There should be a separate list for “developers of the SDL library” so these
things get addressed and dont get lost in the shuffle.
I agree with this completely. Maybye people could talk on the SDL-CVS list.
–TylerOn June 19, 2005 11:53 am, Antonio SJ Musumeci wrote: