On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:45:43PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote: > 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?
Depends on the buffering mode it is in. Basically, I consider it a bad style that should be avoided. Joerg