[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: dup2() vs dup3() inconsistency when
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 07:04 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Well, as long as we are fixing the dup3() interface in the way that Al
> and Ulrich have suggested, what about another fix:
> give an error if newfd is already open, thus forcing the user to do an
> explicit close
> ?
> This silent close in dup2() is an implementation blemish. Why not eliminate it?

Apart from the usual "do not break almost all existing apps" killer
reason: The alternative is that people will simply add a "close(newfd)"
everytime before "dup2(oldfd,newfd)" since close() is harmless on a
non-open fd.

Firmix Software GmbH
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 14:13    [W:0.047 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site