On 04/05/2010 02:56 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> And also the write flavors of popen: popen(xx,O_BINARY?"wb":"w")
>
> I have to say, though, the "I know what you want, but I won't
> do it because you didn't ask for "r" mode the way I want you to"
> error messages are the bain of one's programming exis
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
My philosophy is slightly different. I prefer to go with whatever it is
that makes life easier for programming to multiple platforms.
>>>
>>> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11312
>>
>> Unfortunately, Uli rejected it
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Eric Blake on 2/22/2010 4:29 PM:
>> According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 3:50 PM:
The question, though, is whether cygwin's extension is useful enough to
push on all platforms. Gnulib tends to favor glibc extensions rather than
cygwin extensions. In
According to Eric Blake on 2/22/2010 4:29 PM:
> According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 3:50 PM:
>>> The question, though, is whether cygwin's extension is useful enough to
>>> push on all platforms. Gnulib tends to favor glibc extensions rather than
>>> cygwin extensions. In other words, it is hard
According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 3:50 PM:
>> The question, though, is whether cygwin's extension is useful enough to
>> push on all platforms. Gnulib tends to favor glibc extensions rather than
>> cygwin extensions. In other words, it is hard to justify replacing a
>> glibc function that is p
Eric Blake wrote:
> POSIX requires fopen(,"rb") to be identical to fopen(,"r"); while C99
> requires both to exist but allows them to have different behavior (as a
> concession to windows). However, there is no standard for popen(,"rb").
>
>>> rather than changing gnulib's popen module.
>> It's y
According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 12:25 PM:
> As far as I know, I don't know. :) The only thing I know for certain
> is that ``popen (cmd, "rb")'' fails on my box and I know that
> ``fopen (file, "rb")'' works.
POSIX requires fopen(,"rb") to be identical to fopen(,"r"); while C99
requires bot
Eric Blake wrote:
> Thinking aloud here - do we even need a configure check? Or would it just
> be better to depend on the binary-io module, and use #if O_BINARY to
> decide whether to strip 'b' before calling the real popen, and vs. letting
> the underlying popen handle 'b'. As far as I know, al
According to Bruce Korb on 2/22/2010 11:00 AM:
> This patch adds "binary mode" handling for popen() on platforms where
> the native popen() will not. This is a problem especially on
> platforms where fopen() will ignore the 'b' but popen() will not.
> Hence, the test for "does fopen() accept a 'b'
This patch adds "binary mode" handling for popen() on platforms where
the native popen() will not. This is a problem especially on
platforms where fopen() will ignore the 'b' but popen() will not.
Hence, the test for "does fopen() accept a 'b'" won't apply to popen().
GNU libc ought to just ignore
10 matches
Mail list logo
