From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rixed@happyleptic.org Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: debugging guile runtime Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:56:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20110830105642.GA16079@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> References: <20110829125030.GB30079@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <20110829162400.GB21699@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87y5ycowh3.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314701824 10519 80.91.229.12 (30 Aug 2011 10:57:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:57:04 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 30 12:56:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QyM00-0004DB-P1 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:56:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37561 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzy-0001YU-Mj for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzv-0001YP-Ox for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:56:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzt-0008K4-Uu for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:56:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eneide.happyleptic.org ([213.251.171.101]:57608) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzt-0008Jh-Qb for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:56:49 -0400 Original-Received: from extranet.securactive.org ([82.234.213.170] helo=ccellier.rd.securactive.lan) by eneide.happyleptic.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzs-0001Cs-7J for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:56:48 +0200 Original-Received: from rixed by ccellier.rd.securactive.lan with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QyLzn-0004D1-5b for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:56:43 +0200 Mail-Followup-To: rixed@happyleptic.org, guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y5ycowh3.fsf@ambire.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 213.251.171.101 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8748 Archived-At: The problem is not that the *ports* are not closed (they are), but that the other *files* (that are not port) are not closed. When a program exec another one, it's supposed to close all files but 0, 1 and 2. open-process only closes the ports, so if you have other files opened (that you have opened from C for instance) these files will be communicated to the new process, which is not the intended behavior. I state that open-process should _not_ try to close *ports*, but should close all *files* (but 0, 1 and 2) instead.