Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 08:35:20 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: O_TEMPORARY
In-Reply-To: <3A8F24D1.27850.798CFB@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010218083353.4804H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> But I'm beginning to believe the implementation is settled because both your 
> way and Eli's way will need a per-fd structure in the implementation.

You already have that, don't you?  The __o_temporary_files[] array is 
that structure, even if most of its elements are NULL.

> At 
> least that's the way it looks unless we want to have one solution for 
> environments with share and another without. But I think it's easy to see 
> that's not a good way to go.

Yes, I agree.