Eric Blake wrote: > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1208 > > There, I argue that we also need posix_spawn_file_actions_addfchdir(), > in part because it lets us get the same power as openat() in determining > how relative file names are resolved in relation to an fd.
The use-case is, AFAIU, the 'find' program: when it recurses through deep directory hierarchies, it uses openat() to avoid producing too long file names. Right? The Austin Group may want to introduce posix_spawn_file_actions_addfchdir OR posix_spawn_file_actions_addopenat and posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdirat. AFAICS, you wouldn't need both in the standard. So, I would wait until the Austin Group has debated this alternative. Bruno
