Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:00:39 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <2110-Mon01Jan2001190039+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3A50796D.CB476531@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:34:53 +0000)
Subject: Re: fcntl locking changes #3: Notes
References: <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001231145420 DOT 00a8bab0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net> <3A50796D DOT CB476531 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:34:53 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> I applied the dostrerror(), fcntl() and flock() + *lockf() patches. I get
> the same results as you, but the output has file descriptor 7 rather than
> 5.

Did you run the test as a child process of some other program, such as
`redir'?  If so, some of the handles are taken because the child
inherits them from the parent.

> > ljmp/lcall patch        Required before building anything with gcc 2.952
> >                         Includes changes to src/makefile.inc for GAS
> >                         versions and LIBGCCA
> 
> Why is this required? gas seems to produce the same code for lcall.

It's not required.  Gas will print a warning, but GCC options that are
in effect when compiling the offending files are set up in a more
permissive way, so the warnings are only an aesthetic issue.