From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5499 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2013 17:41:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 5486 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2013 17:41:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:41:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r99HfS4k029887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:41:28 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r99HfOsG030054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:41:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tom Tromey , ktietz@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Minor O_CLOEXEC optimization, "regression" fix Message-ID: <20131009174124.GA20135@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131008183214.GB27355@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87li23fsym.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20131009131016.GA1603@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83hacqqsx7.fsf@gnu.org> <87ob6ybcdc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83bo2yqrop.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83bo2yqrop.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:28:54 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This patch confused me: it tests whether O_CLOEXEC is zero, which it > is on Windows, so there should be no need to try "e" at all. If O_CLOEXEC is 0 then the "e" flag is not tried at all, therefore it could not crash on MS-Windows. > Therefore, I don't understand why this is still an issue. What am I > missing? On platforms where O_CLOEXEC is 0 this new patch has no effect. Jan