| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: signed short fd |
| Date: | 2005-03-14 21:05:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4235FC7C.3040409@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>>pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com writes:
>>
>>
>>>That is hardly anything that I would feel comfortable with. Lets break
>>>this down into all the areas that are ambiguous:
>>>
>>>
>>There isn't anything ambiguous about this, nor is it credible that there
>>are implementations that don't follow the intent of the spec.
>>
>>
>
>How do you know the intent of the spec? I have seen no meta discussion
>about the behavior of the file descriptor integer returned from open. The
>Steven's book makes no such assumptions, and the steven's book (Advanced
>Programming in the UNIX Environment) is what people reference.
>
>
>
>
>
My copy of APUE says on page 49: "The file descriptor returned by open
is the lowest numbered unused descriptor. This is used by some
applications to open a new file on standard input, standard output, or
standard error."
Unless someone can show there's an actual problem this discussion seems
quite pointless.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql | 2005-03-14 21:25:22 | Re: signed short fd |
| Previous Message | pgsql | 2005-03-14 20:24:00 | Re: signed short fd |