Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code

From: "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code
Date: 2006-09-27 09:07:04
Message-ID: C9A33A2803C7F3479A02A333328A174756CAC0@ewell.memetrics.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


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)))
>
>
> With the _setmode() call deep in the if statement... I would suggest we
> split that up into a couple of lines to make it more readable - I'm sure
> all compilers will easily optimise it into the same code anyway.
> Reasonable?

I agree it would be clearer if split up.

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)

Cheers,
Claudio

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Schaber 2006-09-27 09:34:21 Ignore that mail (was: jar in repository)
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2006-09-27 08:50:02 Re: Developer's Wiki

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Strong, David 2006-09-27 13:02:46 Re: Faster StrNCpy
Previous Message Jeremy Drake 2006-09-27 08:57:28 large object regression tests, take two