* 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).