Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Regarding your conceptually separate change that adds the check >> for fts_close failure, you're welcome to add it back, especially >> if you can come up with a test case that triggers it. > > Those changes aren't needed any more, since the programs are about to > exit anyway. They were needed only because yesterday's code sometimes > accessed the working directory even after fts_close was called. It no > longer does this, so there's no longer any need to check the return > values from fts_close. > > I suppose we could even remove the calls to fts_close. That'd make > the programs a bit smaller and faster, at a slight cost to conceptual > cleanliness.
I prefer to leave them, in order to close any file descriptor and free malloc'd storage before exiting. That makes it easier to spot real leaks. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
