Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer david.siemens.de) From: "Andrej Borsenkow" To: "cygwin" 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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@sourceware.cygnus.com