This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Have rename() semantics changed?

To: "cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com" <cygwin at hotpop dot com>
Subject: Re: Have rename() semantics changed?
From: Chris Johns <cjohns at cybertec dot com dot au>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:43:22 +1000
Organization: Cybertec Pty Ltd
References: <779F20BCCE5AD31186A50008C75D9979171747@silldn_mail1.sanwaint.com> <779F20BCCE5AD31186A50008C75D9979171747@silldn_mail1.sanwaint.com> <4.3.1.2.20000713122755.01dbc620@pop.ma.ultranet.com>



"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> 
> 
> According to the MSDN, FILE_SHARE_DELETE is a NT/W2K thingy.  That implies
> that this functionality is only available there.  One would hope that
> enabling it doesn't cause 9x to misbehave but who knows.  I suppose the
> constant could be conditionally compiled in if need be...
> 

This may explain the patch problem I reported not long ago. I think I
failed to meantion this was on Win95.

-- 
 Chris Johns, mailto:cjohns@cybertec.com.au mailto:ccj@acm.org


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Have rename() semantics changed?
  - From: Chris Faylor

References:
- RE: Have rename() semantics changed?
  - From: Fifer, Eric
- Re: Have rename() semantics changed?
  - From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]