On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:49:17AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2003-02-03, I wrote: > > > Why is that relevant to Wine? 99% of the Wine code uses DOS/Windows > > functions like WriteFile() anyway. All we need to do is make sure that > > these functions handle the Unix fd's properly (and they will if they > > don't call close()). > > What's up, people? I think at least I deserve an answer to this > argument. Or is everybody just too busy? Well, i agree with you that the close call's shouldn't be needed but my voice dosn't count.
bye
michael
> I am not going to give up easily on this one, because I still think it's
> the right thing to do. If anybody is worried about regressions or the
> risk of future close() calls, I am willing to care for that.
>
> As for the risk of someone inadvertently close()ing an fd and someone
> else writing to it, how about something like this:
>
> static inline int wine_close_unix_fd (int fd) { return close (fd); }
> #define close(fd) ERROR --- please dont call close() in Wine !!
>
> in the Wine headers, and changing close() to wine_close_unix_fd()
> wherever the close() is found to be legitimate?
--
Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199
System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/
D-70178 Stuttgart
msg17276/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
