Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> It really depends on the context.
Some (e.g. fhandler_console) try to cover all bases but
I don't think it's right, or at least necessary
HANDLE h = CreateFileA ("CONIN$", GENERIC_READ, FILE_SHARE_WRITE,
if (h == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE || h == NULL)
Pierre
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:31:34AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> Is '!' invalid? It can easily be confused with '|'.
>
>Maybe ':' ?
Take a look at the context.
>> I am bothered that the code uses 0 as an illegal
>> handle value. Is that really the case?
>
>No.
>/usr/incl
Chris January wrote:
>
> > > Is '!' invalid? It can easily be confused with '|'.
> >
> > Maybe ':' ?
> >
> > > I am bothered that the code uses 0 as an illegal
> > > handle value. Is that really the case?
> >
> > No.
> > /usr/include/w32api/winbase.h:232:#define INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE
> > (HANDLE)(
> > Is '!' invalid? It can easily be confused with '|'.
>
> Maybe ':' ?
>
> > I am bothered that the code uses 0 as an illegal
> > handle value. Is that really the case?
>
> No.
> /usr/include/w32api/winbase.h:232:#define INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE
> (HANDLE)(-1)
It's not quite as simple as that...
Alth
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Is '!' invalid? It can easily be confused with '|'.
Maybe ':' ?
> I am bothered that the code uses 0 as an illegal
> handle value. Is that really the case?
No.
/usr/include/w32api/winbase.h:232:#define INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE (HANDLE)(-1)
Max.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:10:51AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>And yesterday's question: On line 173 of fhandler_disk_file.cc
>>>[strpbrk (get_win32_name (), "?*|<>|")] is there a need for the
>>>two '|'? Was something else meant?
>>
>>I removed it. I don't know if there is another inval
At 11:34 PM 9/18/2002 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> if (fl->l_len < 0)
>>{
>> win32_start -= fl->l_len;
>> win32_len = -fl->l_len;
>>}
>I've looked at that code a few times and wondered about that. It seems
>backwards but maybe someone else has more insight.
>
Like, if st
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:02:25PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>I fixed all that by adding set_nohandle () and get_nohandle () appropriately.
>To avoid submitting patches on top of yesterday changes, I include cumulative
>changes for the last two days.
>
>Also, on line 476 of fhandler_disk_fi
Running more complicated tests around my changes of yesterday, I can produce
the following system_printf by doing close on exec's and then forking:
121340 [main] a 86211543 fhandler_base::fork_fixup: /dev/zero - Win32 error 6,
handle io_handle<0x0>
121
At 08:18 PM 9/17/2002 -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Hehehehe, I was just about to hit send on a reply to your original email
on this
>Pierre! It wasn't going to have a nice patch attached though. Thanks for
>tracking this down and fixing it.
This problem is fixed, but there is another one!
]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pierre A. Humblet
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: open () on Win95 directories
>
>
> As reported on Sunday in the Cygwin list, applications such as
> mutt 1.4 do not work on Win95/98
As reported on Sunday in the Cygwin list, applications such as
mutt 1.4 do not work on Win95/98/ME because there Cygwin does
not implement open() on directories, as CreateFile () does
not work on directories either. However often open () is used on
directories with fchdir () or fstat (), which
12 matches
Mail list logo
