From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:33:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: O_TEMPORARY
Message-ID: <3A8D7266.19805.561972@localhost>
In-reply-to: <2561-Fri16Feb2001124539+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <3A8C7B40 DOT 5144 DOT 6753FD AT localhost> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com)
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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

> Did they tell on what OS is that?

From Win95 on.

> remove call if a file is open, so the file remains undeleted.  DOS
> blindly deletes the file and corrupts the FAT.  If we want the
> behavior you described on all platforms, we will have to do that
> explicitly.

> So I guess this all means you need to handle normal open for a file
> which is open with O_TEMPORARY as if it were a `dup' call, right?

The other case of one file opened twice with O_TEMPORARY can definitely be 
handled as if it were a 'dup' call. But I'm not sure yet what should be done 
about this case, but it could be done the same way. The only flaw I see is if 
the file is opened first without O_TEMPORARY, the second open with 
O_TEMPORARY won't be able to find out about the first one.

Ideas on what to do here and why are definitely welcome.

Mark