Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Envelope-Sender-Is:	Andrej DOT Borsenkow AT mow DOT siemens DOT ru (at relayer david.siemens.de)
From:	"Andrej Borsenkow" <Andrej DOT Borsenkow AT mow DOT siemens DOT ru>
To:	"cygwin" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	RE: putenv() - copying environment string violates Unix specs?
Date:	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:07:19 +0400
Message-ID:	<002201bff630$e20191c0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
In-reply-to:	<397D824A.44F1288@cygnus.com>

> > Of course, then setenv() should never attempt to reuse old
> environment
> > string. Just occured to me. That gives consitent handling -
> caller is
> > responsible for allocating and freeing environment strings.
>
> That's not required by SUSv2. If you call setenv you can't
> influence memory usage in any way. See the glibc example.
>

Granted. That implies, that mixing putenv() and setenv() is a bad thing.
Good to know :-)

-andrej


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -