From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200009182019.WAA26760@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: O_APPEND
In-Reply-To:	<200009181937.PAA21670@envy.delorie.com> from DJ Delorie at "Sep 18, 2000 03:37:24 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:19:36 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

According to DJ Delorie:

This code is in setmode():
> >   newmode = (oldmode & ~(O_BINARY|O_TEXT)) | (mode & (O_BINARY|O_TEXT));
> > becomes:
> >   newmode = (oldmode & ~(O_BINARY|O_TEXT|O_APPEND)) | (mode & (O_BINARY|O_TEXT|O_APPEND));

followed by:
__file_handle_set (handle, newmode);

> No.  setmode() shouldn't be used to change the O_APPEND mode.  It is
> for text/binary changes only.

Well how can I expect to preserve the O_APPEND flag here if I don't do
it as above? Or is my idea to make __file_handle_modes an array of
unsigned short instead of char completely wrong?


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -