On 10/09/2012 12:54 PM, Steven M. Schweda wrote: > I was trying to fix a specific > problem, and I don't know how many other instances of open() would be > affected/damaged by a global change.
That depends on what the problem was. I don't know VMS. But if the problem affects one instance of open with those flags, why wouldn't it affect them all? > This change is specific to the use of P_tmpdir (defined in <stdio.h> > around here), Why not just fix P_tmpdir directly, then? That'd be simpler, surely. And it could be done in the stdio.h wrapper. > sometimes it's nice to know what's going on . We want to insulate the mainline developers from having to know what's going on in unusual ports. Their life is plenty complicated already. > Resurrecting > HAVE_WORKING_VFORK and its friends could allow hiding (or disguising) > some of the VMS specificity, but not much.) Why not? What's the difference between VMS vfork and (say) GNU/Linux vfork? I'd rather resurrect that code, if VMS could be abstracted away, than to have code that's VMS-only vfork.
