Message-ID:	<250B3114DA16D511B82C00E0094005F8023FC088@MSGWAW11>
From:	=?iso-8859-2?Q?Wojciech_Ga=B3=B1zka?= <wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl>
To:	"'djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Win2K : what about _creat* ?
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:04:36 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id GAA29229
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> ----------
> Od: 	Eli Zaretskii[SMTP:eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il]
> Odpowiedz do: 	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
> Wysłano: 	17 sierpnia 2001 10:58
> Do: 	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
> DW: 	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com; acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au
> Temat: 	Re: Win2K : what about _creat* ?
> 
> > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:29:09 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> > + if(_osmajor == 5 && _USE_LFN && _dos_get_version(1) == 0x532)
> > + {
> > +   _close(r.x.ax);
> > +   return _open(filename, 2);
> > + }
> 
> I suggest the other way around: open first, then close the LFN
> handle.  This way, you minimize the risk of something removing the
> file in between.  (You might need to fsync the handle before the call
> to _open, though.)
> 
	Shouldn't we worry about sharing permission on the file being
oopened twice?

- Raw text -