Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:29:24 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fflush() on readonly files Message-ID: <20040619132924.GA71908@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040619130718.GA71593@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20040609154040.GA26229@asura.bsd> <20040610021356.GA4990@VARK.homeunix.com> <20040610025439.GA11655@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040619095642.GA67130@sanatana.dharma> <20040619105938.GA69596@nagual.pp.ru> <20040619120149.GA64515@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040619130718.GA71593@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 05:07:18PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > > - BSD since Torek's stdio rewrite (inc. FreeBSD and Mac OS X) indicate > > an error. > > We need to fix just fflush() case only, left other rewrite parts > untouched. > > if ((fp->_flags & (__SWR | __SRW)) == 0) > retval = 0; > > > There is no reason to change from the perfectly correct & well-documented > > behaviour BSD has had for 10-15 years. The original poster's example provides > > a good argument for this: it detects application bugs. > > I agree. It may sounds confusing. I mean I want to return to pre-Torek stdio rewrite state Unix (and BSD?) have for years. With big number of apps writen for Linux today nobody want to detect such "bugs" for the sake of standards vagueness but want to have working app. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040619132924.GA71908>