read vs fread

[Patrice Kadionik]

Hi all,

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

1. Family read and Co: open, close, read, write, ioctl...
2. Family fread and Co: fopen, fclose, fread, swrite, fcntl...
Family read and Co:
- are syscalls.
- are not formatted IO : we have a non formatted byte stream.
- don't use the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing character devices.
Family fread and Co:
- are functions of the standard IO libc (glibc).
- use an internal buffer (in their coding)
- are formatted IO (with the "%.." parameter) for some of them.
- use always the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing bloc devices.

When I'm opening an ordinary file on a HD (bloc device), I'm always
using the buffer cache with open or fopen. In case of fopen, I'm using
in addition an internal buffer when I'm doing a fread or fwrite for
speeding HD access.
When I'm opening an character device, I'm not using the buffer cache.
Open and Co are generally used here.

Is is OK?
Some points I've forgotten?

Thank you for your response;
Pat.

[jacob navia]

Patrice Kadionik wrote:

Hi all,

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

1. Family read and Co: open, close, read, write, ioctl...
2. Family fread and Co: fopen, fclose, fread, swrite, fcntl...
Family read and Co:
- are syscalls.
- are not formatted IO : we have a non formatted byte stream.
- don't use the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing character devices.
Family fread and Co:
- are functions of the standard IO libc (glibc).
- use an internal buffer (in their coding)
- are formatted IO (with the "%.." parameter) for some of them.
- use always the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing bloc devices.

When I'm opening an ordinary file on a HD (bloc device), I'm always
using the buffer cache with open or fopen. In case of fopen, I'm using
in addition an internal buffer when I'm doing a fread or fwrite for
speeding HD access.
When I'm opening an character device, I'm not using the buffer cache.
Open and Co are generally used here.

Is is OK?
Some points I've forgotten?

Thank you for your response;
Pat.

I think that's quite OK. Maybe a small point, you can read
from a character device using fread, or fgetc, for instance
you can read from the keyboard...

[Ben Pfaff]

Patrice Kadionik <ka******@enseirb.fr> writes:

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

This is not the place to do it. Try a Linux programming
newsgroup.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: bl*@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

[Patrice Kadionik]

Hi Jacob,
You're right!
You may use fread on a character device (a serial line for example).
Interesting when the byte stream is ASCII character oriented...
Thanks;
Pat.

jacob navia wrote:

Patrice Kadionik wrote:

Hi all,

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

1. Family read and Co: open, close, read, write, ioctl...
2. Family fread and Co: fopen, fclose, fread, swrite, fcntl...
Family read and Co:
- are syscalls.
- are not formatted IO : we have a non formatted byte stream.
- don't use the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing character devices.
Family fread and Co:
- are functions of the standard IO libc (glibc).
- use an internal buffer (in their coding)
- are formatted IO (with the "%.." parameter) for some of them.
- use always the Linux buffer cache.
- generally used for accessing bloc devices.

When I'm opening an ordinary file on a HD (bloc device), I'm always
using the buffer cache with open or fopen. In case of fopen, I'm using
in addition an internal buffer when I'm doing a fread or fwrite for
speeding HD access.
When I'm opening an character device, I'm not using the buffer cache.
Open and Co are generally used here.

Is is OK?
Some points I've forgotten?

Thank you for your response;
Pat.

I think that's quite OK. Maybe a small point, you can read
from a character device using fread, or fgetc, for instance
you can read from the keyboard...

[Eric Sosman]

Patrice Kadionik wrote:

Hi all,

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).
Only a few of your questions are about the C language,
so I will give very brief answers. For more information,
please try a Linux or Unix newsgroup.
1. Family read and Co: open, close, read, write, ioctl...
2. Family fread and Co: fopen, fclose, fread, swrite, fcntl...
I think "swrite" should be "fwrite." Also, "fcntl" does
not belong in this list.
Family read and Co:
- are syscalls.
- are not formatted IO : we have a non formatted byte stream.
- don't use the Linux buffer cache.
They probably *do* use the buffer cache when reading
and writing disk files.
- generally used for accessing character devices.
No; they can be used with any devices.
Family fread and Co:
- are functions of the standard IO libc (glibc).
They are library functions specified by the C language
Standard.
- use an internal buffer (in their coding)
Usually, but not necessarily.
- are formatted IO (with the "%.." parameter) for some of them.
- use always the Linux buffer cache.
The probably do *not* use the buffer cache when reading
and writing things that are not disk files.
- generally used for accessing bloc devices.
No; they can be used with any devices the implementation
supports.
When I'm opening an ordinary file on a HD (bloc device), I'm always
using the buffer cache with open or fopen. In case of fopen, I'm using
in addition an internal buffer when I'm doing a fread or fwrite for
speeding HD access.
Usually, but not necessarily.
When I'm opening an character device, I'm not using the buffer cache.
Open and Co are generally used here.
You are probably not using the buffer cache, but there
is no problem using fopen() with these devices -- think about
using getchar() to read keyboard input, for example.
Is is OK?
Some points I've forgotten?

comp.unix.programmer, or Linux newsgroups.

--
Er*********@sun.com

[Keith Thompson]

Patrice Kadionik <ka******@enseirb.fr> writes:

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

fread() is defined by the C standard; read() is not. For more
details, try a Linux-specific newsgroup, or perhaps
comp.unix.programmer.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Patrice Kadionik]

OK,
sorry...
Pat.
Keith Thompson wrote:

Patrice Kadionik <ka******@enseirb.fr> writes:

I want to make a brief comparison between read() and fread() (under a
Linux OS).

fread() is defined by the C standard; read() is not. For more
details, try a Linux-specific newsgroup, or perhaps
comp.unix.programmer.