> Um... -1 on committing this sort of code until I we have some explanation > of what problem the patch attempted to solve. There is a specific meaning > to NULL [default to the parent's handles] ... we need to know the behavior > problem Rob was experiencing.
Yes, but STARTF_USESTDHANDLES was set and those members were NULL. > There is a better patch to this I'd just committed, that will presume > it's an all-or-nothing game, you specify all handles and the process > will have only the handles you define, or specify none and all is well. Your patch is better/fine. Thanks. > Please clarify what mischief the NULL handles caused you, Rob. I was invoking apr_proc_create() with just a stdin handle. --rob
