Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:37:11 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Peter Edwards <peter.edwards@openet-telecom.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Coalescing pipe allocation Message-ID: <xzpektc6rwo.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <401FCCBE.2010008@openet-telecom.com> (Peter Edwards's message of "Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:30:54 %2B0000") References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040131234955.17012E-100000@fledge.watson.org> <401FCCBE.2010008@openet-telecom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Edwards <peter.edwards@openet-telecom.com> writes: > How would one "shut down" one direction of the pipe and still maintain > the other? I don't know how I can signal my intention not to read or > write to the end I leave open... man 2 shutdown > Is this portability issue so ridiculously out of date that the comment > in the pipe(2) manpage should be removed, or at least toned down? No, POSIX only guarantees the traditional behaviour. Bi-directional pipes are a non-portable BSDism. > It > seems silly to incur the costs of implementation you've mentioned and > then recommend that the feature not be used. It can still be useful for programs in the base system, which do not need to be unconditionally portable to non-BSD systems. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpektc6rwo.fsf>