> >> Now, I still twist my head around the lines: > >> if ((fd = _open_osfhandle((long) h, fileFlags & O_APPEND)) < 0 > >> || > >> (fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY) && (_setmode(fd, fileFlags & > (O_TEXT > >> | O_BINARY)) < 0))) > > > Without having studied it closely, it might also highlight a bug > on > > failure of the second clause -- if the _setmode fails, shouldn't > > _close be called instead of CloseHandle, and -1 returned? > > (CloseHandle would still be called on failure of the > _open_osfhandle, > > obviously) > > I agree that this code is both wrong and unreadable (although in > practice the _setmode will probably never fail, which is why our > attention hasn't been drawn to it). Is someone going to submit a > patch? I'm hesitant to change the code myself since I'm not in a > position to test it.
I can look at fixing that. Is it something we want to do for 8.2, or wait until 8.3? If there's a hidden bug, I guess 8.2? //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
