X-Authentication-Warning:	new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p273-tnt2.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.131.19] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID:	<020601c12401$2a567180$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<003801c12241$d44f9b10$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron> <7704-Mon13Aug2001130045+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: Link function query
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:06:35 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > My question is in link.s shouldn't we either use stat() or fstat() not
both?
> > Stat calls lstat() and the lstat file
> >
> > If I move the open path1 and use the fd1 and change the code to use
fstat
> > then the function almost works. Once I use fstat() I then find that the
> > newely created file has the read only bit set, I am currently looking at
> > this issue. I may be able to produce a patch very quickly once I know
the
> > answer to the stat() or fstat() question above.
>
> What is the problem with `stat' here?

The problem appears to be with the st_dev info. I need to check all the rest
of the info to see if there are any other differences.

Let me re-phrase my question:
    Should I be able to compare the results from stat() against fstart()? If
yes then I need to look at this and fix stat() and/or fstat() it instead of
changing the code in link.c

- Raw text -