apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r920017 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.4.x: ./ file_io/unix/open.c include/apr_file_io.h
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:46:36 GMT
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> 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.

Mime
View raw message