X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10201111747.AA19446@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: frlist.c proposed patch
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:47:07 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3099-Fri11Jan2002192635+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 11, 2002 07:26:35 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > Let's take a pathological case:
> >  1) parent closes handles 1..4 (including stdout)
> >  2) child opens a file, writes to it (it is assigned handle 1)
> >  3) child prints to stdout() - it also goes to his file (uggh) and the
> >     buffers are all messed up
> 
> That's _real_ pathological: no parent program in their right mind
> should close stdout .

Maybe so - but while changing code I think it's worth while discussing
very similar problems that might come up.  It could happen with stderr
also.  What about a buggy parent that accidentally closes a handle?
Then you see strangeness in a child process that doesn't use that handle.

> > So, when I do the stdout setup and notice that fileno(stdout) is not
> > open - I'm saying I should change the file structure to cause failures
> > instead of stomping on another file.
> 
> Maybe just put some impossible number, like -1 or something, instead
> of the handles in those FILE objects which are supposed to be
> preconnected.

This was my first thought, then I wondered if ANSI or POSIX had anything
to say about it - and if so what we wanted to do about it.