On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:36:17AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
Why is this a bad idea?
It's a very limited implementation of what sync is supposed to do but
maybe it's better than nothing.
A slightly more robust method would be to implement an internal cygwin
signal which could be sent to every
Christopher Faylor schrieb:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:36:17AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
Why is this a bad idea?
It's a very limited implementation of what sync is supposed to do but
maybe it's better than nothing.
A slightly more robust method would be to implement an internal cygwin
signal which
Well, I don't know if it's a bad idea, but FlushFileBuffers isn't guaranteed
to do anything, and usually doesn't in the very instances that you need it
most. But since sync(3) isn't guaranteed to do anything anyway, I guess it
cancels out.
I'd be sure to put comments in there saying that it
