From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:33:10 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: O_TEMPORARY
Message-ID:	<3A8D7266.19805.561972@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<2561-Fri16Feb2001124539+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3A8C7B40 DOT 5144 DOT 6753FD 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

> Did they tell on what OS is that?

From Win95 on.

> remove call if a file is open, so the file remains undeleted.  DOS
> blindly deletes the file and corrupts the FAT.  If we want the
> behavior you described on all platforms, we will have to do that
> explicitly.

> So I guess this all means you need to handle normal open for a file
> which is open with O_TEMPORARY as if it were a `dup' call, right?

The other case of one file opened twice with O_TEMPORARY can definitely be 
handled as if it were a 'dup' call. But I'm not sure yet what should be done 
about this case, but it could be done the same way. The only flaw I see is if 
the file is opened first without O_TEMPORARY, the second open with 
O_TEMPORARY won't be able to find out about the first one.

Ideas on what to do here and why are definitely welcome.

Mark

- Raw text -