On 2014-01-15 05:53, Lord Laraby wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ted Nolan wrote:
>> In message <52d55d96.8070...@redhat.com> you write:
>>>
>>> Your program may be violating POSIX, which would trigger undefined behavior.
>>>
>>> Quoting POSIX:
>>> pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_05
>>>
>>
>> [long quote elided]
>>
>> Yikes! That's pretty impenatrable. And if it says what I think it says,
>> it seems to violate the way I've understood Unix fork() and how fds
>> (and stdio buffers) are inherited since forever.
>>
>> However..
>>
>> Do I understand that to say that if the first thing my child does is
>>
>> fclose(fp);
>>
>> everything should be hunky-dory?
>>
>> Because I just tried that, and it's still not.
>
> My two cents say, since the child is not referencing 'fp' at all,
> there is no violation of the POSIX semantics in this situation. It
> actually does seem, however, that the fork is closing, or at least
> forgetting the stdio file position of, fp when it forks. A possible
> memory corruption during fork from which fgets can not recover?
Let me requote one little bit quoted by Eric:
(If the only action performed by one of the
processes is one of the exec functions or _exit() (not exit()), the
handle is never accessed in that process.)
Ted is using exit() in the children, not _exit(), and the above indicates
that exit() in fact "accesses the handle". My guess would be that fclose(3)
also "accesses the handle".
But, reading about _exit(), it seems that handle accesses are implementation
defined, so I'm not sure it will help in all situations.
Cheers,
Peter
--
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
