X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to
	:references:date; q=dns; s=default; b=GEYa/vvWoZnTpXAWR3Ht3HZugn
	uQ4TwvrDw6Rf8uVAbZrflrL4nnYXJQLq/aKzFL8t60mcUazcd+8CRGSnGH6KKa2m
	i8XR+cSDaRUlmdR624q8ScqN57EFvib6nNKuTduRleUbD6lp5ZUmlaDxG5Pv/SWb
	5FTgtsN8wYLBXIs+w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to
	:references:date; s=default; bh=g0roV1q8K+I209dHiRpWeekp9F0=; b=
	wsd9BjuJVq/tAylHbMAzWV0OKH500uFiKGZTPXJeicFmZJU0R0GhJLgP2V4YvTLn
	FV9n6+I6cNUlHyLEtjwk5SKsOSyMXHAzMp7HZJjD8WziYMD3tHdkuNlESLsuiPlQ
	xPe6s/ONwwkHSTyycVIUCMEzIKtFTRVPMU2TTO7oTU4=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: nm21-vm10.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <946338.89157.bm@smtp116.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
X-Yahoo-SMTP: BDVluRmswBBpb4.UU1_zlPhs_ysfXcBVjBNXyWpyS_6pPgE-
X-Rocket-Received: from solabel10.tnolan.com (tednolan AT 74 DOT 243 DOT 198 DOT 131 with plain [98.138.84.52])        by smtp116.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2014 16:15:07 +0000 UTC
From: tednolan AT bellsouth DOT net
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: fork() + file descriptor bug in 1.7.27(0.271/5/3) 2013-12-09 11:54
In-reply-to: <52D55D96.8070407@redhat.com>
References: <831845 DOT 98759 DOT bm AT smtp116 DOT sbc DOT mail DOT ne1 DOT yahoo DOT com> <52D55D96 DOT 8070407 AT redhat DOT com>
Comments: In-reply-to Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com>   message dated "Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:53:58 -0700."
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:50:19 -0500
X-IsSubscribed: yes

In message <52D55D96 DOT 8070407 AT redhat DOT com>you write:
>
>Your program may be violating POSIX, which would trigger undefined behavior.
>
>Quoting POSIX:
> pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_05
>

[long quote elided]

Yikes!  That's pretty impenatrable.  And if it says what I think it says,
it seems to violate the way I've understood Unix fork() and how fds 
(and stdio buffers) are inherited since forever.

However..

Do I understand that to say that if the first thing my child does is

	fclose(fp);

everything should be hunky-dory?

Because I just tried that, and it's still not.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple