On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:08:21 -0400 David Korn <[email protected]> wrote:
> cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: [ast-developers] Possible bug in sh_iorestore > -------- > > > No and It's actually difficult to remember how did I come the what I have > > written above... It's completely wrong (maybe not completely -- I still > > think not checking the sh_fcntl return code is not quite OK). > > > > > > Since the codes does > sh_close(origfd); > just before > sh_fcntl(savefd, F_DUPFD, origfd); > and it checks that savefd >=0, how can the sh_fcntl() fail? You're right... I didn't realize we are sure to have at least one descriptor available. So yes -- the mail was a complete nonsense. Thanks for the explanation and sorry again for posting all the garbage. Regards, -- Tomáš Smetana _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
