From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30715 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2013 19:44:37 -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 30701 invoked by uid 89); 8 Oct 2013 19:44:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 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; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:44:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r98JiZPE012006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:44:35 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r98JiXwg014717 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:44:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Minor O_CLOEXEC optimization, "regression" fix References: <20131008183214.GB27355@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20131008183214.GB27355@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:32:14 +0200") Message-ID: <87li23fsym.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> I just noticed GDB does many needless double-opens with ENOENT like: Whoops. Jan> - if (result == NULL) Jan> + if (result != NULL) Jan> + fopen_e_ever_succeeded = 1; Jan> + else if (!fopen_e_ever_succeeded) What if we have it check for EINVAL instead? Tom