On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:27PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:24:44PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:07:10PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > >> libgfortran calls fork/exec /bin/chmod to parse argument to chmod. >> > >> Is that OK to borrow code from coreutils which implements /bin/chmod >> > >> to properly implement chmod? coreutils is under GPLv3 while libgfortran >> > >> is under GPLv2 + exception. Is that possible to get permission from >> > >> the FSF to borrow code from coreutils? >> > > >> > > If the consensus of the Fortran maintainers is that this is the right >> > > thing to do, the SC can ask the FSF for permission. >> > > >> > >> > I don't know if this counts: >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-07/msg00046.html >> > >> >> Do you have an application that shows that the current >> implementation of chmod() is a bottleneck? > > Yes, this might be a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". >
It is broken: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36755 The implementation in libgfortran is incorrect. It doesn't handle signal nor check return from wait to match pid. -- H.J.
