-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 7/22/2006 4:16 PM:
2006-07-22 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* modules/close-stream: New file.
I assume you forgot the cvs add before your checkin, as this did not make
it to CVS. I went ahead and added it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
Should we go ahead and delete the atexit module, then?
That'd be fine with me. Jim?
Hmm, maybe to reduce the effort when patching coreutils to use
this new idiom, maybe you should name the two functions
int close_stdout_warn and void close_stdout,
POSIX states that:
If, at normal process termination, a function registered by the atexit()
function is called and a portable application needs to stop further exit()
processing, it must call the _exit() function or the _Exit() function or one of
the functions which cause abnormal process
Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
POSIX states that:
If, at normal process termination, a function registered by the atexit()
function is called and a portable application needs to stop further exit()
processing, it must call the _exit() function or the _Exit() function or one
of
the
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It must be portable in practice.
There are tests of this behavior that are run as part of
coreutils' make check (see tests/help-version), so I doubt
we'll see any problem.
I'm a bit more cautious here. I think it's possible, for example,
that if a
Paul Eggert eggert at CS.UCLA.EDU writes:
How about something like this change? It's simple, and it fixes the
(perhaps-theoretical) problem. One price we pay is that you must be
careful about the order of atexit calls, but coreutils already invokes
atexit (close_stdout) first, so that
Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a behavior change - previously, you could use close_stdout outside of
an atexit handler, and still have atexit handlers invoked on error.
Yes, that's true.
Should we document this change in the comment at the start of
close_stdout (as opposed to
Also, should we make the
closeout module depend on the atexit module?
I'd say not, since we assume C89 or better these days. As I
understand it the atexit module is needed only for SunOS 4 and
earlier, which is no longer of concern.
Should we go ahead and delete the atexit module, then?
