Re: Permissions of IFS file created with QZRUCLSP

Ah, that sheds some light! Since we have no (apparent) means of telling QZRUCLSP that certain parameters are optional but passed, it seems unlikely that it would be capable of guessing the correct means of passing same.

Probably a moot point, but is the "differently" part of your message a trade/business/compiler secret?

Thanks again. Now I feel more confident about this utility.

"Barbara Morris" <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3/16/2011 8:39 PM, CRPence wrote:

If having "used the same concept in RPG and it worked great"
sufficiently parallels the MI invocation, then probably not "an
O_INHERITMODE flag issue". So if the RPG had performed the same

unlink

and open() as performed by the same user into the same directory yet

did

not exhibit the same "no permissions" outcome, then that flag is
probably not germane; at least seems improbable unless the openFlag
mismatched betwixt.

The open() API has optional parameters, prototyped in C by "..." and
prototyped in RPG by OPTIONS(*NOPASS). Parameters are passed
differently when the compiler knows that some of them are optional.
For
RPG, if you don't code OPTIONS(*NOPASS) on the optional parameters, the

API might interpret the optional parameters incorrectly even when they
are passed.

I'm just wondering if the other mechanisms to call open() are not able
to pass the optional parameters correctly.
_______________________________________________
This is the MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries (MI400) mailing list
To post a message email: MI400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mi400
or email: MI400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/mi400.

--
Sent from my Galaxy tablet phone with with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.