* Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported?
@ 2012-01-08 22:46 Daniel Colascione
2012-01-08 23:26 ` Paul Eggert
2012-01-08 23:44 ` Dan Nicolaescu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Colascione @ 2012-01-08 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Emacs development discussions
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 262 bytes --]
Aside from DOS_NT, do we support any platforms without FD_CLOEXEC?
Today, it's only used conditionally in the Emacs code. I don't see
why: FD_CLOEXEC has been standard for a very long time (4.3BSD and
SVr4). Why wouldn't we want to use it unconditionally?
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 235 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported?
2012-01-08 22:46 Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported? Daniel Colascione
@ 2012-01-08 23:26 ` Paul Eggert
2012-01-08 23:44 ` Dan Nicolaescu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggert @ 2012-01-08 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Colascione; +Cc: Emacs development discussions
On 01/08/12 14:46, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> Aside from DOS_NT, do we support any platforms without FD_CLOEXEC?
No.
> Why wouldn't we want to use it unconditionally?
Outside of the DOS/NT environment, there's no reason these days.
Existing uses of "#ifdef FD_CLOEXEC" and the like are revenants
from platforms that are long ago obsolete and no longer used.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported?
2012-01-08 22:46 Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported? Daniel Colascione
2012-01-08 23:26 ` Paul Eggert
@ 2012-01-08 23:44 ` Dan Nicolaescu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Nicolaescu @ 2012-01-08 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Colascione; +Cc: Emacs development discussions
Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> writes:
> Aside from DOS_NT, do we support any platforms without FD_CLOEXEC?
> Today, it's only used conditionally in the Emacs code. I don't see
> why: FD_CLOEXEC has been standard for a very long time (4.3BSD and
> SVr4). Why wouldn't we want to use it unconditionally?
emacs.c has a FD_CLOEXEC use protected only by ! DOS_NT since 2008-12-08.
We have no received any complaints about this, so the rest of the
FD_CLOEXEC conditionals can go.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-08 23:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-01-08 22:46 Can we depend on FD_CLOEXEC always being supported? Daniel Colascione
2012-01-08 23:26 ` Paul Eggert
2012-01-08 23:44 ` Dan Nicolaescu
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).