Has it defined as 3
>
> Thanks for the information. It turns out some Win32 systems don't
> have it at all, so I have to avoid it.
>
> Instead, I'm doing:
>
> use Fcntl 'O_RDONLY', 'O_RDWR', 'O_WRONLY';
> sub O_ACCMODE ()
it at all, so I have to avoid it.
Instead, I'm doing:
use Fcntl 'O_RDONLY', 'O_RDWR', 'O_WRONLY';
sub O_ACCMODE () { O_RDONLY | O_WRONLY | O_RDWR }
which I think should work everywhere that defines O_((RD|WR)ONLY|RDWR),
whatever their values.
On Mon 01 Apr 2002 10:37, "H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon 01 Apr 2002 04:57, Mark-Jason Dominus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Supposing that Fcntl and O_RDONLY are known to be available, how
> > likely is it that O_ACC
> Supposing that Fcntl and O_RDONLY are known to be available, how
> likely is it that O_ACCMODE will also be available? Are there any
> platforms that have O_RDONLY but not O_ACCMODE?
Win32: MinGW ( gcc ) has it
Bcc 5.5 has it
MS VC++ 5 has not
Regards
mattia
On Mon 01 Apr 2002 04:57, Mark-Jason Dominus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Supposing that Fcntl and O_RDONLY are known to be available, how
> likely is it that O_ACCMODE will also be available? Are there any
> platforms that have O_RDONLY but not O_ACCMODE?
Cygwin has it:
Supposing that Fcntl and O_RDONLY are known to be available, how
likely is it that O_ACCMODE will also be available? Are there any
platforms that have O_RDONLY but not O_ACCMODE?
