Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/02/23/13:01:47
> Shouldn't the second typedef simply be "struct fd_properties", without
> "typedef"?
I'll take your word for it. I'm more familiar with the details of C++ than C.
> > + */ static fd_properties * alloc_fd_properties() {
> > + static void free_fd_properties(fd_properties *fd) {
Pegasus did this. It does weird things like this sometimes. However, the next
function after these two was formatted wrong.
> > *************** open(const char* filename, int oflag, ..
> > *** 152,157 ****
> > --- 153,161 ----
> > if(oflag & O_APPEND)
> > lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END);
> >
> > + if (oflag)
> > + _set_fd_properties(fd, real_name, oflag);
> > +
>
> Isn't it better to put this into _open instead of open? The opposite
> operation is inside _close, not close.
Doesn't matter to me, but then wouldn't the same code need to be added to
_creatnew since open calls it too?
- Raw text -