Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/03/01/03:39:18
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Mark E. wrote:
> >> > however I'm not sure about one change I made:
> > >
> > > *************** open(const char* filename, int oflag, .. *** 107,113 ****
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (should_create)
> > > ! fd = _creatnew(real_name, dmode, oflag & 0xff);
> > > else
> > > {
> > > fd = _open(real_name, oflag);
> > > --- 109,115 ----
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (should_create)
> > > ! fd = _creatnew(real_name, dmode, oflag);
> > > else
> > > {
> > > fd = _open(real_name, oflag);
> > >
> > >
> > > If the masking with 0xff is neccessary, I can rework that part.
> >
> > What is the value of O_TEMPORARY? (Btw, I don't see the diffs for
> > fcntl.h in the patches.)
>
> Here it is:
> *** fcntl.h 2001/02/01 19:17:17 1.5
> --- fcntl.h 2001/02/28 22:04:12
> *************** int fcntl(int _fildes, int _cmd, ...);
> *** 77,82 ****
> --- 77,84 ----
> #define O_NOLINK 0x4000
> #define O_NOFOLLOW 0x8000
>
> + #define O_TEMPORARY 0x10000 /* Delete file after closing. */
> +
In that case, you will need to reset all the bits in oflag except the
lowest byte and the O_TEMPORARY bit, because DOS gives a different
meaning to the other bits, and _creatnew plugs its last argument more
or less directly into the BX register.
> > > + See also @ref{__set_fd_properties} and @ref{__dup_fd_properties}.
> >
> > You cannot use "@ref" on its own, you have to say "see" or something
> > else.
>
> I'm confused here. Are you saying the phrase "See also" isn't enough?
It is enough for the first @ref, but not for the second.
I'm thinking about the printed version (the Info output doesn't care
if there's a "See" before "*Note"). In the printed version, @ref
generates a bare-bones reference, like "[Foo Bar], p.123" (where ``Foo
Bar'' is a name of a section). So the above will look like this:
See also [__set_fd_prperties], p. 123 and [__dup_fd_properties],
p. 234.
This IMHO only marginally legible. I suggest to rephrase like this:
For more info, look in @ref{__set_fd_prperties} and in
@ref{__dup_fd_properties}.
But if you think the first wording is okay in print, I guess I won't
argue.
- Raw text -