Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:31:39 -0700 | From | Ulrich Drepper <> | Subject | Re: dup2() vs dup3() inconsistency when |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > The dup2() behavior comes from the logical consequence of dup2()'s > "close on reuse"; one would think it would be logical for dup3() to > behave the same way.
No. We deliberately decided on this change. Otherwise, what is the result of dup3(fd, fd, O_CLOEXEC)? There is no reason to use dup2(fd,fd), so why the hell somebody wants to defend this is beyond me.
- -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjuaisACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHRBBgCeMtzyHtpv7jt5a2XxIq9LEoDN ZVYAnixMwtW6d6SL55MvrKwV/B5Yv1Cm =MCqO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |