Applied.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > >> Now, I still twist my head around the lines:
> > > > >> if ((fd = _open_osfhandle((long) h, fileFlags & O_APPEND)) < 0
> > > > >>
> > > > 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
"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "If successful, _setmode returns the previous translation mode. A return
> value of -1 indicates an error"
> So, shouldn't we be testing for -1 instead of < 0 ?
I think the usual convention is to test for < 0, unless there are other
negat
> Magnus, is this the right fix?
Well, actually msdn states:
"Return Value
If successful, _setmode returns the previous translation mode. A return
value of -1 indicates an error"
So, shouldn't we be testing for -1 instead of < 0 ?
The thing is probably academic, since _setmode is only suppose
> > > > > 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
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > >> 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)))
>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> 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
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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 mysel
> >> 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
