[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] an example of broken lib
- To: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
- Subject: Re: [MiNT] an example of broken lib
- From: "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:24:31 +0200
- In-reply-to: <Pine.MNT.4.10.9906232247060.106-100000@milan>; from Frank Naumann on Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 11:07:04PM +0200
- Mail-followup-to: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
- References: <000901bebd45$a6d0fde0$cf00a8c0@nbreschke> <Pine.MNT.4.10.9906232247060.106-100000@milan>
- Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Frank Naumann wrote:
> No, xfs support isn't necessary. The kernel have all informations. I added
> Ffchown() and Ffchmod() some minutes ago:
>
> dos_tab[0x101] = f_fchown; /* 1.15.2 */
> dos_tab[0x102] = f_fchmod; /* 1.15.2 */
>
> implemented like Fchown() & Fchmod(). Any suggestions?
Yep, sorry, this is insider knowledge: Could you change the type of the
first argument from "short int" to "long int"? Otherwise, the library
binding actually had to check if the descriptor is out of bounds. I think
this is better done by the kernel.
A propos library binding: What if Ffchown() and Ffchmod() is not supported
by the kernel? I would suggest to always return 0 for success in the
library. For older MiNT versions this is somewhat problematic but it will
be handy for MagiC and TOS without mulit-user support. Anybody has got
problems with that?
The same applies under MiNT if the FS doesn't support these calls. I
think it is ok to report success nonetheless, is it?
Ciao
Guido
--
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de