Dhruv McElwaine via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote in <CAFu_3LxcK1Bg012CYGKPP7k8pqcnA=npmke_5ad1Z688a=q...@mail.gmail.com>: |i think that's just a historical accident. The next step would be to create |an issue on the bug tracker for a enhancement request to standardise `dup3` |with the appropriate flag (maybe consider `O_ALLOCATE_LOWEST` as a name).
That is also and interesting thing, .. but .. i cannot imagine that to happen. |The description could just be a more formal version of your email, and the |desired action should be the API you propose to standardise. Well likely i will open an issue, i was just too surprised because the text is so hm self-confident in that || The safe counterpart for avoiding the same race with dup( ) is || the use of the F_DUPFD_CLOFORK or F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC action of the || fcntl( ) function. sounds definitive, whereas i stood in dead-end when coding. Thanks you, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
