delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:30:00 +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: | <992852988.30606.2.camel@bender.falconsoft.be> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010618132911.24334E@is> |
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 |
On 18 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > 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? > > It keeps a table of files it has opened; this table has an associated > cleanup function that unlinks those that need to be removed. But it > never seems to close those files (or not all of them anyway), resulting > in an error in unlink() (on LoseME anyway). > I've now simply added a call to the stdio_cleanup_proc in those places > where an _fcloseall() was added on Lose32. Isn't it cleaner to close each file just before it is unlinked?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |