Re: closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Eric Blake
> > Also, should we make the > > closeout module depend on the atexit module? > > I'd say not, since we assume C89 or better these days. As I > understand it the atexit module is needed only for SunOS 4 and > earlier, which is no longer of concern. Should we go ahead and delete the atexit module

Re: closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Paul Eggert
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a behavior change - previously, you could use close_stdout outside of > an atexit handler, and still have atexit handlers invoked on error. Yes, that's true. > Should we document this change in the comment at the start of > close_stdout (as oppos

Re: closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Eric Blake
Paul Eggert CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > > How about something like this change? It's simple, and it fixes the > (perhaps-theoretical) problem. One price we pay is that you must be > careful about the order of atexit calls, but coreutils already invokes > atexit (close_stdout) first, so that won't b

Re: stdlib-safer module

2006-07-21 Thread Paul Eggert
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I assume that Paul forgot these files when porting from coreutils, so I am > checking this in (as I found a bug in m4 that would be solved by using > mkstemp_safer). Thanks, yes, I did forget.

Re: closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Paul Eggert
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It must be portable in practice. > There are tests of this behavior that are run as part of > coreutils' "make check" (see tests/help-version), so I doubt > we'll see any problem. I'm a bit more cautious here. I think it's possible, for example, that if

stdio-safer and tmpfile

2006-07-21 Thread Eric Blake
Even after using stdio-safer, m4 still has a bug where stderr can be clobbered; it is the third case in: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-m4/2006-07/msg00021.html I traced it to the fact that we don't have tmpfile_safer. I based my implementation on Paul's fopen trick, which uses at most o

Re: closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Jim Meyering
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > POSIX states that: > If, at normal process termination, a function registered by the atexit() > function is called and a portable application needs to stop further exit() > processing, it must call the _exit() function or the _Exit() function or one > of > t

closeout bug?

2006-07-21 Thread Eric Blake
POSIX states that: If, at normal process termination, a function registered by the atexit() function is called and a portable application needs to stop further exit() processing, it must call the _exit() function or the _Exit() function or one of the functions which cause abnormal process termin

stdlib-safer module

2006-07-21 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I assume that Paul forgot these files when porting from coreutils, so I am checking this in (as I found a bug in m4 that would be solved by using mkstemp_safer). lib/ChangeLog: 2006-07-21 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * stdlib-safer.h: New

Re: getaddrinfo module conflict

2006-07-21 Thread Alexandre Anriot
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:52:30 -0700 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: > >> OpenBSD is an example, but there is more, a lot of system doesn't > >> support AI_ADDRCONFIG or other specific flags, and thus would be >