On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 23:33, Matthias Clasen wrote: > So, you found that dup3 doesn't do what you want, and now you want to > throw out the baby with the bathwater and just say "I don't care > anymore if we leak fds" ?
dup3() was a bit of a "straw that broke the camel's back" case. I could point at the existence of g_unix_open_pipe() as a similarly ridiculous case, or many others. I'm also not impressed by the inaccurate categorisation. I thought I explained fairly clearly why I believe that leaked fds will _not_ be the case, even without O_CLOEXEC. I was looking for some slightly more constructive arguments... Cheers _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
