"Claudio Natoli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> Now, I still twist my head around the lines:
>> if ((fd = _open_osfhandle((long) h, fileFlags & O_APPEND)) < 0
>> ||
>> (fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY) && (_setmode(fd,
>> fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY)) < 0)))

> Without having studied it closely, it might also highlight a bug on failure 
> of the second clause -- if the _setmode fails, shouldn't _close be called 
> instead of CloseHandle, and -1 returned?  (CloseHandle would still be called 
> on failure of the _open_osfhandle, obviously)

I agree that this code is both wrong and unreadable (although in
practice the _setmode will probably never fail, which is why our
attention hasn't been drawn to it).  Is someone going to submit a
patch?  I'm hesitant to change the code myself since I'm not in
a position to test it.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to