Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:30:15 GMT From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: threads/79887: [patch] freopen() isn't thread-safe Message-ID: <200512290630.jBT6UFUp073622@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR threads/79887; it has been noted by GNATS. From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@yandex-team.ru> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/79887: [patch] freopen() isn't thread-safe Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:23:39 +0800 Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > > Well, this is C, not C++, so there cannot be strict difference between > allowed and disallowed. But the _close field is not required by any > standarts (funopen() too) and is not documented by manpages (I checked > manpages with grep). And there does exist documented interface for > setting _close: funopen(). Thus _close is internal. > > > Then why use the following code to close a file descriptor, if (isopen) (void) (*fp->_close)(fp->_cookie); Why don't use _close(fp->_file)? this should be faster. This implies that someone can replace fp->_close with another function pointer,so that function must be called unconditionally. I think the libc should have a document to clarify this problem. Also should we move the PR to freebsd-standard@ list ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512290630.jBT6UFUp073622>