[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I guess the point of this `_FORTIFY_SOURCE' thing is to help catch
> errors related to interactions with the kernel (among others). The idea
> is that when performing a system call, one _should_ be concerned about
> its result.
>
> In the case of async.c:250, I don't understand whether/how failure of
> the `write ()' call should be handled.
I think it's writing a byte as an inter-thread signaling mechanism.
It's pretty unlikely that a single byte write will be interrupted, but
if it is then a retry will be needed, so I think the use of
SCM_SYSCALL is correct in principle here.
How about this, which is more similarly to the other uses of
SCM_SYSCALL in the code?
SCM_SYSCALL (rv = write (sleep_fd, &dummy, 1));
(Whole patch is below.)
Regards,
Neil
Index: async.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/guile/guile/guile-core/libguile/async.c,v
retrieving revision 1.86
diff -u -r1.86 async.c
--- async.c 17 Apr 2006 00:05:37 -0000 1.86
+++ async.c 19 Oct 2006 18:46:32 -0000
@@ -241,13 +241,14 @@
if (sleep_fd >= 0)
{
char dummy = 0;
+ int rv;
/* Likewise, T might already been done with sleeping here, but
interrupting it once too often does no harm. T might also
not yet have started sleeping, but this is no problem either
since the data written to a pipe will not be lost, unlike a
condition variable signal.
*/
- write (sleep_fd, &dummy, 1);
+ SCM_SYSCALL (rv = write (sleep_fd, &dummy, 1));
}
/* This is needed to protect sleep_mutex.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
