On 10/9/18 11:21 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:03 AM Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
whether someone patches the cygwin dll or cp, it seems like some rather
hairy code for what is normally a rare corner case, so it probably won't
happen unless someone actually contributes a patch.
Right. Here's a completely untested guess patch:
--- a/winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc
+++ b/winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc
@@ -1363,7 +1363,15 @@ open (const char *unix_path, int flags, ...)
opt |= PC_CTTY;
}
- if (!(fh = build_fh_name (unix_path, opt, stat_suffixes)))
+ suffix_info *suffices = stat_suffixes;
suffices is a completely different word; did you mean suffixes?
+ if ((opt & (O_WRONLY|O_BINARY)) == (O_WRONLY|O_BINARY))
O_WRONLY need not be a bitmask; it's better to use O_ACCMODE for the
bitmask, as in
opt & (O_ACCMODE|O_BINARY) == O_WRONLY|O_BINARY
+ {
+ /* Hack so 'cp foo bar' doesn't abort with
+ 'cp: cannot create regular file bar: File exists'
+ if bar.exe already exists */
+ suffices = NULL;
+ }
+ if (!(fh = build_fh_name (unix_path, opt, suffices)))
So, with mistakes corrected, your hack is that cygwin doing auto-suffix
probing should be suppressed in the case of opening a file O_WRONLY? Why
does O_BINARY have to fit in the equation?
__leave; /* errno already set */
if ((flags & O_NOFOLLOW) && fh->issymlink ())
{
Feel free to throw rotten fruit :-)
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
