Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 08:45:19 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Charles Marslett <charles DOT marslett AT tempe DOT vlsi DOT com>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug fix for `stat'
In-Reply-To: <316D4441.26FC@tempe.vlsi.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960414084144.1640L-100000@is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Charles Marslett wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> If this is correct, _STAT_EXECBIT should be renamed -- a name like that
> implies a single bit is set in the equate, in which case the two lines
> of code do exactly the same thing.  If it is a multibit equate, it should
> be named something like _STAT_EXECSELECT so as to not imply a single bit
> value (now I gotta go look at the definition, like I shouda done first... :-).

That constant is internal to the code of `stat' (as you probably already 
know if you looked it up in the sources), so it can bear any meaning 
that's good enough for whoever wrote that code.  The reason why it is 
called `BIT' is that it means that the excute permission bit in the stat 
structure should be computed.