D. writes:
> >Why are you doing this? Don't the existing threads provide a much
> more robust and better-performing solution? It sounds like you're
> recreating the old Solaris 8 two-level thread library, which we
> intentionally removed seven years ago because it's an inferior
> solution (PSARC 20
> > > > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> > > > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we can just change that.
> > > >
> > > >Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase might be depending on
> > it.
> > > >
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
>> casper@sun.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
>>> > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think we can just change that.
>>> >
>>> >Modulo due di
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> casper@sun.com wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
>> > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
>> > >
>> > > I think we can just change that.
>> >
>> >Modulo due diligence to se
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Peter Memishian
wrote:
>
> > > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> > > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
> > > >
> > > > I think we can just change that.
> > >
> > >Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase m
casper@sun.com wrote:
>
> >
> > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
> > >
> > > I think we can just change that.
> >
> >Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase might be depending on it.
> >Is it really wo
> > > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> > > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
> > >
> > > I think we can just change that.
> >
> >Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase might be depending on it.
> >Is it really worth it?
>
> As suppose
>
> > I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> > ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
> >
> > I think we can just change that.
>
>Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase might be depending on it.
>Is it really worth it?
As supposed to adding __posix_acces
> I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
> ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
>
> I think we can just change that.
Modulo due diligence to see what in our codebase might be depending on it.
Is it really worth it?
--
meem
___
>Why are you doing this? Don't the existing threads provide a much
more robust and better-performing solution? It sounds like you're
recreating the old Solaris 8 two-level thread library, which we
intentionally removed seven years ago because it's an inferior
solution (PSARC 2001/287).
I am not tr
D. writes:
> So I wrote a user threads lib. The threads run in a Solaris process. Signals
> occur on the stack of whatever thread is currently executing. I get signals,
> like SIGINT, etc., and can let them unwind naturally. But I thought that I'd
> like to unwind the exception from within the e
I see no reason for "access(file, X_OK))" should return 0 for
ordinary files which have no execute bit set.
I think we can just change that.
Casper
___
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailma
Calling access("foo", X_OK) as root returns 0 even though none of the execute
bits set. As non-root, this fails with EACCES.
I know this behaviour is almost certainly known. Sun's access(2) man page says
this: "If the process has appropriate privileges, an implementation may
indicate success fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
