Subject: Re: Our unlink() isn't POSIX
From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010618095339.22931A@is>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010618095339 DOT 22931A AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.10 (Preview Release)
Date: 18 Jun 2001 10:29:48 +0200
Message-Id: <992852988.30606.2.camel@bender.falconsoft.be>
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
Precedence: bulk

On 18 Jun 2001 09:54:13 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> No.  For those, you will need the loop you posted.
> 
> But I don't really understand what problem is this close-all code
> supposed to solve?  Could you elaborate on what does lclint do that
> forces you to use such techniques?

It keeps a table of files it has opened; this table has an associated
cleanup function that unlinks those that need to be removed.  But it
never seems to close those files (or not all of them anyway), resulting
in an error in unlink() (on LoseME anyway).
I've now simply added a call to the stdio_cleanup_proc in those places
where an _fcloseall() was added on Lose32.

> Other than that, this can go in.  Thanks!

OK - will do.

-- 
Tim Van Holder - Anubex N.V.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was posted using plain text. I do not endorse any
products or services that may be hyperlinked to this message.