the other names we've
thought of.
We get
>> some problem with unistd--.h and fcntl--.h: How do we define open()
>> such that
>> open (s, f [, m]) ::= open (s, f | O_SAFER [, m])
>> That becomes a bit hairy.
It would be done as follows (leaving the declarations
On 08/24/2009 11:29 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
For that matter, proposing an O_SAFER to the glibc folks might be worthwhile.
Yes, but better call it O_NONSTD
O_NOSTDFD?
If glibc or the kernel goes into this direction, it would be cool.
Whether gnulib should define this
Eric Blake wrote:
> For that matter, proposing an O_SAFER to the glibc folks might be worthwhile.
Yes, but better call it O_NONSTD. The term "safer" will confuse people who
care about security, I think, and is not specific. The term should make clear
that it won't return any
