[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: possible open() problem again

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:05:53PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Well, ISO C doesn't cover fcntl.h, if it would, it would certainly not
>> be a perfectly legal C code, as per ISO C99, 7.1.3/1.
>> As fcntl.h is a POSIX header, you need to consider that standard
>> and that standard says that this code is not perfectly legal.
> Yes.  And the ANSI C spec also makes structure assignment internally
> self-inconsistent, forbids using pointers out of the allocated range even
> for comparison and so on...
> That doesn't create an excuse for doing these things, and doing them breaks
> lots of code and annoys people. You'll figure this out when you try and
> push it in a product people pay for, and also that just about everything
> the idiot macro hack does can be done by a 1 line of perl search of the
> source trees.

Hm, in fact, *if* this is only for the F8 devel phase (is it?) then
maybe an rpm macro in the prep phase to do that perl search would be
less painful...

Just a thought.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]