I've only one request for clarification below. Otherwise, the patch looks good.

(lines removed by the patch trimmed)

Am 22.12.2016 um 18:09 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
+static HANDLE swap_osfhnd(int fd, HANDLE new_handle)
+{
+       /*
+        * Create a copy of the original handle associated with fd
+        * because the original will get closed when we dup2().
+        */
+       HANDLE handle = (HANDLE)_get_osfhandle(fd);
+       HANDLE duplicate = duplicate_handle(handle);

+       /* Create a temp fd associated with the already open "new_handle". */
+       int new_fd = _open_osfhandle((intptr_t)new_handle, O_BINARY);

+       assert((fd == 1) || (fd == 2));

+       /*
+        * Use stock dup2() to re-bind fd to the new handle.  Note that
+        * this will implicitly close(1) and close both fd=1 and the
+        * originally associated handle.  It will open a new fd=1 and
+        * call DuplicateHandle() on the handle associated with new_fd.
+        * It is because of this implicit close() that we created the
+        * copy of the original.
+        *
+        * Note that the OS can recycle HANDLE (numbers) just like it
+        * recycles fd (numbers), so we must update the cached value
+        * of "console".  You can use GetFileType() to see that
+        * handle and _get_osfhandle(fd) may have the same number
+        * value, but they refer to different actual files now.

Certainly, the OS does not recycle handle values that are in use (open). Then I do not quite get the point of this paragraph. See...

+        *
+        * Note that dup2() when given target := {0,1,2} will also
+        * call SetStdHandle(), so we don't need to worry about that.
+        */
+       dup2(new_fd, fd);
+       if (console == handle)
+               console = duplicate;

... This is where "the cached value of console is updated", right? If console == handle, then this is not because a handle value was recycled, but because fd *was* console. Since the old value of console has been closed by the dup2(), we must refer to the back-up value in the future. Am I missing something?

+       handle = INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE;

+       /* Close the temp fd.  This explicitly closes "new_handle"
+        * (because it has been associated with it).
+        */
+       close(new_fd);

+       fd_is_interactive[fd] |= FD_SWAPPED;

+       return duplicate;
 }

Reply via email to