Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should the extensions module be extended to check for and define
> _POSIX_SOURCE, to coax the compiler into admitting that fdopen
> exists?
I'd be inclined to say "no". Defining _POSIX_SOURCE tends to cause
more problems than it cures, because it can disa
Paul Eggert CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
>
> With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile
> is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer
> module into two, as follows:
/usr/ucb/cc on Solaris 7 didn't like fopen-safer or tmpfile-safer:
cc -Xc -D__EX
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you accept a similar patch that splits out pipe-safer into its own
> module instead of part of unistd-safer?
I think that'd be OK, yes. It sounds pretty straightforward, anyway.
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was worried that there was something bigger here. Usually a
> "safety" issue is something more important than leaving a
> temporary file undeleted or limiting their number, like the
> possibility of a security hole, a segfault, etc.
Eric Blake mentioned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ben Pfaff on 7/26/2006 11:54 AM:
> Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> According to Ben Pfaff on 7/25/2006 11:21 AM:
>>> Can you expand on why tmpfile is not so safe?
>> I'd still like to fear Paul's reasons.
>
> I hope you mea
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to Ben Pfaff on 7/25/2006 11:21 AM:
>> Can you expand on why tmpfile is not so safe?
>
> I'd still like to fear Paul's reasons.
I hope you mean "hear" them :-)
> But one of mine is that tmpfile is allowed to leave a permanent
> file behind if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ben Pfaff on 7/25/2006 11:21 AM:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile
>> is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer
>> module i
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile
> is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer
> module into two, as follows:
Can you expand on why tmpfile is not so safe?
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [EMAIL PRO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 7/25/2006 12:24 AM:
> With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile
> is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer
> module into two, as follows:
Reasonable. In fact, it
