Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:54:13 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Our unlink() isn't POSIX
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEGACEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010618095339.22931A@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, 17 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > _fwalk walks all
> > the FILE objects and fflushes them before closing, not just closes the
> > handle.
> 
> Will look into it.  This would not catch files opened with regular open()
> though, would it?

No.  For those, you will need the loop you posted.

But I don't really understand what problem is this close-all code
supposed to solve?  Could you elaborate on what does lclint do that
forces you to use such techniques?

> And are stdin/stdout/stderr part of the list of
> FILE*s walked by _fwalk?

It fflushes them, but doesn't close them.  Which might be not what you
want if the file in question has one of the standard streams
redirected to it.

> +@subheading Caveat
> +
> +The @sc{posix} specification requires this removal to be delayed until the
> +file is no longer open.  Due to problems with the underlying operating
> +systems, this implementation of @code{unlink} does not fully comply with
> +the specs; if the file you want to unlink is open, you're asking for
> +trouble - how much trouble depends on the underlying OS.  On NT (and
> +possibly on 2000 as well), you get the behaviour @sc{posix} expects.
> +On Win9x and WinME (and possibly WinXP as well), the removal will simply
> +fail (@code{errno} gets set to @code{EACCES}).  On DOS, removing an
> +open file could lead to filesystem corruption if the removed file is
> +written to before it's closed.

This is okay, but:

 - please replace a single "-" with "---", this will make makeinfo and
   TeX produce a dash;

 - please say "Windows 2000", for more clarity; and

 - we don't like to think about Windows as ``a win'', so please change
   WinFOO into Windows FOO.

Other than that, this can go in.  Thanks!