Hi! Thursday, 27 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>do we need this "no free names" logic at all? the only suspicious >>place is fhandler_disk_file::open () where we were storing pointer to >>real_path's win32_path, so if it was changing later we were staying in >>sync with those changes. but i can't see why it may change after open >>is called, so making duplicate looks safe for me. Comments? CF> We've recently changed build_fhandler so that it probably isn't necessary CF> to use the no_free_names anymore. CF> I don't have a lot of time to investigate right now, but it's possible that CF> we can now get rid of this entirely. CF> So, I think your patch is probably overkill. ? why overkill? i've just moved two identical pieces of code into separate routine and removed no_free_names checks. I was thinking it's rather "underkill" because no_free_names bit in flags are left intact. Egor. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
