From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Append to input history file instead of overwriting it
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83sifi611j.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+C-WL-E-vAXHCik8jLk9A-4E40tLLagkiNfo7nCPsbsU07gcQ@mail.gmail.com>
> From: Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:17:56 -0500
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> From: Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>
> >> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:48:03 -0500
> >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >>
> >> > On Windows, a call to 'rename' fails if the destination already
> >> > exists. Does the logic here cope with that?
> >>
> >> Hmm, the logic does not really cope with Windows' behavior here,
> >> because the above warning should only get emitted for unexpected
> >> failures. So I suppose we should only emit the above warning if errno
> >> != EBUSY (perhaps only on Windows systems)?
> >
> > Why EBUSY?
>
> Just a wild guess. What would be the correct error code to check for?
> Looks like it would be EACCES..
According to my testing, it's EEXIST.
> > We could also explicitly remove the target before the rename call (and
> > ignore any errors from that), which will make it work like on Posix
> > systems.
>
> I don't think that would be sufficient. In a hypothetical but
> plausible scenario, process GDB1 would call unlink(), process GDB2
> would then call unlink(), process GDB1 would then call rename()
> successfully, process GDB2 would then call rename() and fail on
> Windows despite calling unlink() on the destination.
What would you suggest that GDB2 does instead? I see no solution here
that would not fail in some way. Do you?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-10 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-29 2:01 Patrick Palka
2014-12-01 20:50 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2014-12-04 16:18 ` Pedro Alves
2014-12-05 0:19 ` Patrick Palka
2014-12-05 10:45 ` Pedro Alves
2014-12-05 14:11 ` Patrick Palka
2014-12-10 16:54 ` Pedro Alves
2014-12-10 17:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-12-10 17:23 ` Pedro Alves
2015-01-10 14:10 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 15:16 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 15:18 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 15:39 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-01-10 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 16:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-01-10 16:18 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 16:41 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2015-01-10 18:17 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-10 18:46 ` Patrick Palka
2015-01-12 19:05 ` Pedro Alves
2015-01-12 22:56 ` Patrick Palka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83sifi611j.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=patrick@parcs.ath.cx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).