Re: [PATCH] broken dd on systems without __fpending

Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The correct fix would be to add __fpending to the libc Yes, that sounds like a good idea, since everyone else who's done that sort of thing has added . I think Solaris did it first, quite some time ago; see

Re: [PATCH] broken dd on systems without __fpending

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Jim Meyering wrote: Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is a bug in dd --- if libc doesn't have __fpending, coreutils will use a stub that always returns 1. A side effect of this stub is that close_stdout always calls fclose(stdout) --- it normally doesn't mat

Re: [PATCH] broken dd on systems without __fpending

Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a bug in dd --- if libc doesn't have __fpending, coreutils will > use a stub that always returns 1. A side effect of this stub is that > close_stdout always calls fclose(stdout) --- it normally doesn't matter > for most utilities except dd --- d

[PATCH] broken dd on systems without __fpending

Hi There is a bug in dd --- if libc doesn't have __fpending, coreutils will use a stub that always returns 1. A side effect of this stub is that close_stdout always calls fclose(stdout) --- it normally doesn't matter for most utilities except dd --- dd calls close(1) on its own and later fclo