From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:01:31 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: O_TEMPORARY v2
Message-ID:	<3A965F2B.10227.264CB2@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<5567-Fri23Feb2001120549+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3A95981A DOT 14546 DOT 31CA2 AT localhost> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Shouldn't the second typedef simply be "struct fd_properties", without
> "typedef"?

I'll take your word for it. I'm more familiar with the details of C++ than C.

> > + */ static fd_properties * alloc_fd_properties() {
> > + static void free_fd_properties(fd_properties *fd) {

Pegasus did this. It does weird things like this sometimes. However, the next 
function after these two was formatted wrong.
 
> > *************** open(const char* filename, int oflag, ..
> > *** 152,157 ****
> > --- 153,161 ----
> >     if(oflag & O_APPEND)
> >       lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END);
> > 
> > +   if (oflag)
> > +     _set_fd_properties(fd, real_name, oflag);
> > +     
> 
> Isn't it better to put this into _open instead of open?  The opposite
> operation is inside _close, not close.

Doesn't matter to me, but then wouldn't the same code need to be added to 
_creatnew since open calls it too?

- Raw text -