> > Also, should we make the > > closeout module depend on the atexit module? > > I'd say not, since we assume C89 or better these days. As I > understand it the atexit module is needed only for SunOS 4 and > earlier, which is no longer of concern.
Should we go ahead and delete the atexit module, then? > > > This also puts me in a bit of a dilemma with m4. > > OK, how about this patch instead? It splits out the atexit part from > the main part, and m4 can invoke the main part by hand. I like it. If no one else objects, go ahead and commit it, or something like it; then that plus my tmpfile_safer patch should make the upcoming m4 1.4.6 robust to closed fds with minimal porting effort. (Anyone care to give a review on the tmpfile_safer idea?) Hmm, maybe to reduce the effort when patching coreutils to use this new idiom, maybe you should name the two functions int close_stdout_warn and void close_stdout, rather than your proposed int close_stdout and void close_stdout_exit (with the second in each set calling _exit), so that you aren't changing semantics of existing programs that already do atexit (close_stdout). But whatever names you settle on, I should be able to use the non-_exit version in m4 without too much difficulty. -- Eric Blake
