> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 06:39:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Furthermore, AFAICS, the above logic is redundant with what the kernel
>> does anyway. That is, in a single-threaded program,
>> mask = umask (0);
>> umask (mask);
>> mkdir (file, 0777 ^ mask);
>> is equivalent to:
>> mkdir (file, 0777);
>> Am I right that we should just remove these two ‘umask’ calls?
> According to umask(2), yes, you are right. Unless someone has been
> trying to work around some platform-specific bug/idiosyncracy.
I don’t think there was ever a good reason for this.
Fixed in 245608911698adb3472803856019bdd5670b6614.
Thanks for your feedback,