From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10108162209.AA13700@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	_open.c commit? (was Re: Selector Exhaustion)
To:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell)
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:09:40 -0500 (CDT)
Cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
In-Reply-To:	<001d01c12698$f64eac00$0a02a8c0@acceleron> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Aug 17, 2001 07:18:12 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> It crashed. Last night I rebuilt LIBC and FileUtils with Charles's _open.c
> patch to see if some more errors disappeared and the updated patch now
> works. When I finish the IOCTL tests I should revert to the old _open.c and
> see why patch crashed.

If you don't see any problems with _open.c, and there are no comments from
the group, I'd like to commit the working version.

> It wasn't the _rename issue, but I can't remember the results from symify,
> but it was repeatable. As far as I know I have applied all of the patches
> for Win2K in the LIBC that I am using, including the majority of non
> commited Win 2K patches if they help resolve issues.

I'd like to work on getting the remaining uncommited ones in or to 
decide what's next.

Should we sit on the current selector cleanup patch or commit it also?
Nothing stopping us from revising it later if that becomes a high 
priority.  I haven't heard anything negative (but lots positive) about
it.  While the performance issue is there, it's probably minor compared
to the current benefit?

Opinions?

- Raw text -