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.
Regards,
Graham
--
