On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:40:22AM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote: >> Most of the printf's were already there before this round of >> updates, and there's enough differentiation in them to figure out >> which process is responsible. In any case, the printf's aren't >> critical to the test (until you need to debug it!). > > I am talking about the *new* printf in the child process. > That should just be a plain write to STDERR_FILENO, it doesn't even have > to include any more error details.
This is pure curiosity: isn't a fflush(stderr) right before the fork() enough to make printf() safe in the child? If not, why not? -- Julio Merino / @jmmv
