Message-ID: <250B3114DA16D511B82C00E0094005F8023FC088@MSGWAW11> From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Wojciech_Ga=B3=B1zka?= To: "'djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com'" Subject: RE: Win2K : what about _creat* ? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:04:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id GAA29229 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com > ---------- > Od: Eli Zaretskii[SMTP:eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il] > Odpowiedz do: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com > Wysłano: 17 sierpnia 2001 10:58 > Do: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu > DW: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com; acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au > Temat: Re: Win2K : what about _creat* ? > > > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) > > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:29:09 -0500 (CDT) > > > > + if(_osmajor == 5 && _USE_LFN && _dos_get_version(1) == 0x532) > > + { > > + _close(r.x.ax); > > + return _open(filename, 2); > > + } > > I suggest the other way around: open first, then close the LFN > handle. This way, you minimize the risk of something removing the > file in between. (You might need to fsync the handle before the call > to _open, though.) > Shouldn't we worry about sharing permission on the file being oopened twice?