From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 9 18:34:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA10597 for current-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:34:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA10545 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:33:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.com [204.244.186.218] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xqqjh-00066D-00; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:33:21 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:33:18 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Nathan Dorfman cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Non-Posixly Correct pipe() and socketpair() In-Reply-To: <19980109191945.48808@rtfm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > Here's a quick question that arose in #unix yesterday. Why does FreeBSD > have a bi-directional pipe() call when socketpair() does exactly this? > What benefits does making pipe() bi as well have? Doesn't this break POSIX > and introduce a new generation of Berkeleyisms? I don't think anything depends on this behaviour. John Dyson implemented new faster pipe code that is used for all types of pipes. Basically all pipes are the same (again this is only freebsd-current, I believe). I like the idea that all pipes are the same. > -- > ________________ _______________________________ > / Nathan Dorfman V PGP: finger nathan@rtfm.net / > / nathan@rtfm.net | http://www.rtfm.net / > > Tom