On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08 Mar 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >>> Hmmm, the existing code follows this pattern, as below, and if we decide >>> to >>> change the pattern then we need to change this behaviour throughout the >>> rest >>> of the code, and probably the rest of APR too. >> >> For APR_FOPEN_NONBLOCK, if the caller asks for it but APR doesn't know >> how to implement it, should it succeed? Would it possibly/definitely >> break the program to pretend success? >> >> (Maybe this isn't a practical concern -- no known platforms have this >> issue -- but other APR code supports multiple variations of the >> non-block flag.) > > Hmmm - in that case it may make sense to drop the ifdef entirely, and if a > unix platform is found to not support O_BLOCK, we can then make a call then > as what to do. The ifdef could in theory be solving a problem we don't have.
I mis-worded this slightly -- I should have said "maybe no known platforms have this issue". I have no idea what the answer is.
