Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:17:13 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <7263-Tue25Feb2003211713+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E5B6452.82F4D938@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:40:50 +0000)
Subject: Re: Implementation of fchmod [PATCH]
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1030206081714 DOT 6656L-100000 AT is> <3E54E663 DOT 5F32DFF7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <2427-Sat22Feb2003220304+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E5B6452 DOT 82F4D938 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:40:50 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> FWIW Linux allows writes to the file, after fchmod'ing to be read-only. The
> test program at the end of this mail works fine on Linux. The file is
> read-only afterwards.

Then there's no problem, I think.  Thanks for looking into this.

> I thought about returning ENOSYS instead of ENOENT. I think you suggested this
> before. But this would be misleading, I think. I take ENOSYS to mean that the
> system call is not implemented at all, whereas we've partially implemented it.
> So I think ENOENT is right.

ENOSYS means the feature is not supported, so I think it's okay.  I
won't mind to use ENOENT, but please consider what will a user think
when presented with "No such file or directory" in response to a
function that didn't accept any file name.

> But how do we detect that standard handles are piped?

Call isatty on the handle; if it returns zero, the handle is
redirected.