IMHO - keep using the open/read/write functions.  They do give you
better control with less buffering.  (but very slightly less portable)

Are you "reading" something, but the read function is returning an error
because there is nothing to read??  Check the return value of read().
It should be the number of bytes gotten.  If the file descriptor is set
up for non-blocking reads and there is nothing there it will return a -1
with errno set to EAGAIN.  Of course once you get misplaced in where the
software thinks it is in the stream of data things get real hairy real
quick.

Dan

Herbert Graf wrote:

>>Are you using fflush() after your sends, this flushes  the buffer
>>when your
>>send string is small and forces a complete send of your data.
>>
>>
>
>        Hmm, no, I can't use it since I'm not using fopen, but open instead. Should
>I be using the f* functions instead (i.e. fopen, fwrite, fclose, etc.).
>Thanks, TTYL
>
>----------------------------------
>Herbert's PIC Stuff:
>http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
>[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads