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

Re: possible open() problem again

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:53:03 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com> wrote:

> 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...

I think this will show up in upstream glibc 2.7 when it is released.


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