Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:35:36 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Message-Id: <2427-Sat18Aug2001103535+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl
In-reply-to: <10108180453.AA14191@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: Win2K : what about _creat* ?
References:  <10108180453 DOT AA14191 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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

> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:53:28 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> > > > 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.)
> 
> At this point the file should be empty either way, so why would fsync
> be needed?

Without fsync, the file might not be empty on disk, or might not even
exist, if you created it.  I'm not saying you _must_ use fsync, just
that you _might_ need it.

> I think the odds of the file disappearing in the millisecond
> between close and reopen to be pretty small (especially since this 
> insanity only is foisted upon Win2K/XP).

Windows is a multi-processing system, so that millisecond could become
much longer, if the CPU is preempted between close and reopen.
_creat_new is used by functions which create temporary files, where
this contention might be important and should be kept to a minimum.