From 773716c32ae0f19a78264c511d89758600288dce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bbbradsmith Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 21:46:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] sim65 close(-1) crash fix test/val/constexpr.c relies on close(-1) to return -1 for some reason (comment says "abuse"), but on MSVC close(-1) is treated as a security issue and terminates the program instead of returning -1 simulating this desire for sim65, though constexpr.c may also warrant a review --- src/sim65/paravirt.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/sim65/paravirt.c b/src/sim65/paravirt.c index 9e5c28432..0b16f89e9 100644 --- a/src/sim65/paravirt.c +++ b/src/sim65/paravirt.c @@ -242,7 +242,15 @@ static void PVClose (CPURegs* Regs) Print (stderr, 2, "PVClose ($%04X)\n", FD); - RetVal = close (FD); + if (FD != 0xFFFF) { + RetVal = close (FD); + } else { + /* test/val/constexpr.c "abuses" close, expecting close(-1) to return -1. + ** This behaviour is not the same on all target platforms. + ** MSVC's close treats it as a fatal error instead and terminates. + */ + RetVal = 0xFFFF; + } SetAX (Regs, RetVal); }