On 10/10/2015 10:16 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 10/09/15 22:05, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I still have problems imagining that they
>> would define O_RDONLY as 0 in a bitmapped variable!!!
> It makes more sense if you think of it as the absence of O_RDWR.

Unfortunately, it is even more complicated than that, because it is
actually the absence of O_RWRD and O_WRONLY.

In my opinion the original implementation was faulty because O_RDONLY
should really be defined as:

#define O_RDONLY !(O_RWRD&O_RONLY)

See my second to last commit ...

Goan, but that is how it is so now we know, and hopefully it should now
work correctly.

Best regards,
Kern

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users