Re: mkstemp bug

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:19:45PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >Dude, seriously, get over me. Here's how email works. You send email. Someone either responds or doesn't respond. For a while I didn't respond but you kept sending. I'm responding now. I'm trying to do so in the fashion that

Re: mkstemp bug

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:39:04PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:01:07PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> >[snip] >> >>>So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need >> to inform me >> >>>that they don't work? And that advances the discussion >> ho

RE: mkstemp bug

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:19:56AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: > >> * Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [2005-04-28 21:01:07 -0500]: > >> > >> [snip] > >>> > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to > >>> inform me > >>> > that they don't work? And that advances the di

RE: mkstemp bug

> > * Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [2005-04-28 21:01:07 -0500]: > > > > [snip] > >> > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to > >> inform me > >> > that they don't work? And that advances the discussion > >> how, exactly? > >> > >> I did not just tell you that the

RE: mkstemp bug

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:01:07PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > >[snip] > >>>So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need > to inform me > >>>that they don't work? And that advances the discussion > how, exactly? > >> > >>I did not just tell you that they are broken. I also

Re: mkstemp bug

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:19:56AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-28 21:01:07 -0500]: >> >> [snip] >>> > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to >>> inform me >>> > that they don't work? And that advances the discussion >>> h

Re: mkstemp bug

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:01:07PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >[snip] >>>So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to inform me >>>that they don't work? And that advances the discussion how, exactly? >> >>I did not just tell you that they are broken. I also gave you a test >>

Re: mkstemp bug

On Apr 29 10:19, Sam Steingold wrote: > > * Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-28 21:01:07 -0500]: > > Dude, you are just *asking* for one heck of a zinger! > > > Sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean. > (PS it may be because Engli

Re: mkstemp bug

> * Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-28 21:01:07 -0500]: > > [snip] >> > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to >> inform me >> > that they don't work? And that advances the discussion >> how, exactly? >> >> I did not just tell you that they are broken. >> I

RE: mkstemp bug

[snip] > > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to > inform me > > that they don't work? And that advances the discussion > how, exactly? > > I did not just tell you that they are broken. > I also gave you a test case for FIFOs. > I think such a test case is useful for deve

Re: mkstemp bug

> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 22:29:34 -0400]: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:39:37PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 18:20:31 -0400]: >>> the problem is that mkstemp() does not regard FIFOs (as created by mkfifo(

Re: mkstemp bug

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:26:32PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: fifos just barely work under cygwin. I wouldn't recommend using them. >>> >>>Yes, it appears that they are heavily broken. >> >>So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to inform me >>that they don't work? And

Re: mkstemp bug

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:26:32PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> >> fifos just barely work under cygwin. I wouldn't recommend >> using them. >> > >> >Yes, it appears that they are heavily broken. >> >> So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to >> inform me that they don'

RE: mkstemp bug

> >> fifos just barely work under cygwin. I wouldn't recommend > using them. > > > >Yes, it appears that they are heavily broken. > > So when I say "fifos just barely work" you felt the need to > inform me that they don't work? And that advances the > discussion how, exactly? > > cgf > And

Re: mkstemp bug

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:06:09PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 13:24:29 -0400]: >> >> it appears that mkstemp() returns a temp FD pointing to the same file: >> mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); >> ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" >> mkstemp ("/tmp/cl

Re: mkstemp bug

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:39:37PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 18:20:31 -0400]: >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:06:09PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 13:24:29 -0400]: it appears tha

Re: mkstemp bug

> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 18:20:31 -0400]: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:06:09PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 13:24:29 -0400]: >>> >>> it appears that mkstemp() returns a temp FD pointing to the same file: >>> mkstemp

Re: mkstemp bug

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:06:09PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: >> * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 13:24:29 -0400]: >> >> it appears that mkstemp() returns a temp FD pointing to the same file: >> mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); >> ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" >> mkstemp ("/tmp/cl

Re: mkstemp bug

> * Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 13:24:29 -0400]: > > it appears that mkstemp() returns a temp FD pointing to the same file: > mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); > ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" > mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); > ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" > mkstemp ("/tmp/cl

RE: mkstemp bug

Sam Steingold: > > * Tony Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm surprised your example doesn't segfault. My Linux man page says > > explicitly that the template should not be a string > constant but must > > be a character array, i.e. use > > > > char t1[] = "/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"; > >

Re: mkstemp bug

> * Tony Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-27 12:41:20 -0500]: > > I'm surprised your example doesn't segfault. My Linux man page says > explicitly that the template should not be a string constant but must > be a character array, i.e. use > > char t1[] = "/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"; >

Re: mkstemp bug

I'm surprised your example doesn't segfault. My Linux man page says explicitly that the template should not be a string constant but must be a character array, i.e. use char t1[] = "/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"; char t2[] = "/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"; char t3[] = "/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX";

mkstemp bug

Hi, it appears that mkstemp() returns a temp FD pointing to the same file: mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" mkstemp ("/tmp/clisp-x-io-XX"); ==> "/tmp/clisp-x-io-000592" is this a known bug? thanks