Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 09:25:12 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Build problems
In-Reply-To: <10109160545.AA15331@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010916092253.7026G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> _creat and the re-open succeeds and we return the new handle.  I don't 
> know why this new handle isn't good enough, unless something somewhere
> doesn't expect us to "skip" handles (the one before the one we return is
> the original one we freed).

If this is the reason, we could dup2 the new handle, after we close the 
old one.  It should be easy to see whether this solves the problem.

If this doesn't help, I suppose we could change the order of the 
open/close dance, like you originally suggested.