On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:16:07PM -0400, Aaron Brace wrote: > Good news that a fix has been put in place. > > That all being said I do not see any point in which fclose will be > called twice with my patch. If close returns a positive value (error) > than I set fp=0 and run the code block...I have an if statement added in > that code block (similiar to sam's need_fclose if statement) that will > not run fclose again because fp=0. > > On the other hand if fclose is successful then it returns a 0 and that > entire code block is skipped and execution jumps down to the else code > block where I again set fp=0 for safety...There is no fclose there in > that block.
OK, you're right. I think Sam's solution is cleaner though, and needs less mental gymnastics to validate. Regards, Brian. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Courier-imap mailing list Courier-imap@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-imap
