> I'm happy to submit this to b.o.o (I still giggle at > that acronym!), if it's of value to everyone. > I know that it would help me out, but I'm big enough > to realise that point doesn't really count for much > ;)
If it would help you out, it might help others out, provided it's done consistently with draft standards (proposed for POSIX), or practices (*BSDs?) as already exist, and provided it doesn't create a mess somehow. Do the homework: cite some examples of software it would aid in porting (esp. if they might become part of OpenSolaris; in this case, you might check on kde-discuss), cite the POSIX draft status, and any other applicable standards or practices that you can reasonably find that already exist. Note that POSIX requires that if opendir() is based on file descriptors (doesn't necessarily have to be), the file descriptor would be closed on exec. Perhaps someone needs to get clarification whether the intent will be for the added dirfd() to also do that; if so, a simple implementation would be fine (but the documentation should point out that dirfd() would only be valid as long as the DIR* it was derived from was valid), otherwise there would be other problems. One not necessarily standard description of dirfd I saw said that if opendir() wasn't implemented based on file descriptors, dirfd() could return -1; but that may still be up for discussion with the Austin Group folks; I can't get to the opengroup.org web site right now to check. Someone around here (Don Cragun?) has regular contact with them, and may be able to get enough clarification that it can be done with maximum confidence that it will match their final version (or tell you that they're not at that point yet). Not that you'd have to put all that in an RFE of course, but for an ARC, the more justification and evidence that you've thought it all through thoroughly, the better. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
