X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <3CC72CFD.5391DAFE@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:09:01 +0100 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com CC: "Peter J. Farley III" Subject: Re: PATCH: fcntl and F_GETFL, mark 2 References: <10204061918 DOT AA13504 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Charles Sandmann wrote: > > > > > +On Windows NT/2000/XP this cannot report the open mode correctly - > > > > +@code{O_RDWR} is always returned. > > > > > > I'm not sure on this. I didn't have time to patch/build everything, > > > but I extracted the code which did modes and printed them to the > > > screen, and it gave 2 for handles 0..3 and 1 for handle 4 (it didn't > > > fail getting sft). The difference in value may indicate it actually > > > works on Win2K. > > > > So perhaps we should change the docs wording to say that it _might_ > > be unable to report the open mode correctly (the code already does > > TRT, I believe). > > I would prefer we don't put anything at all unless we know there is a > problem. I tried the code on a Win2k box at work and it appears to work. So I guess it would work on WinXP too. I've just tested it under WinNT4+SP5 with SFN (no LFN TSR) under VMware 3.1 and the results are weird. _get_sft_entry_ptr in src/libc/posix/fcntl/fcntl.c returns some value, but then files are reported as read-only irrespective of what mode they were opened with. So it looks like the return value from _get_sft_entry_ptr is bogus. Or maybe the SFT it points to is bogus. Looking back at my mail, I see that _get_sft_entry_ptr appeared with the locking patches. Is it supposed/know to work on Windows NT? The SFT handling code in fstat is pretty different. I wonder if that works OK. BTW debugging under VMware 3.1 seems to work pretty well. It's much better than under VMware 2.0. I haven't had any VMware crashes yet (touch/knock on wood, fingers crossed, etc.). Thanks, bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]