[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141213000223.GA530@muslin>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:02:24 -0800
From: Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: possible getopt stderr output changes
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:07:56PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > The current getopt code uses some ugly write() sequences to generate
> > its output to stderr, and fails to support message translation. The
> > latter was an oversight when locale/translation support was added and
> > should absolutely be fixed. I'm not sure whether we should leave the
> > code using write() though or switch to fprintf.
>
> It's been pointed out on irc that POSIX requires ferror(stderr) to be
> set if writing the message fails. However fwrite could still be used
> instead of fprintf. If we need to use stdio at all, however, I'd lean
> towards wanting to make the whole write atomic (i.e. hold the lock for
> the whole time) which is more of a pain without fprintf. So basically
> we're looking at:
>
> fprintf:
> PROS: smaller and simpler code in getopt.c, only one syscall
> CONS: additional ~6.5k of additional code pulled in for static
>
> fwrite:
> PROS: minimal static linking deps
> CONS: need to use flockfile (or implementation internals) for
> atomicity if desired, and multiple writes (so no atomicity on the fd)
I realize there's quality of implementation to be concerned about and
similar issues, but I'm really wondering:
How brain-damaged does code have to be to call getopt() from a thread,
*after* starting a second thread and beginning writes to stderr?
Is there any real-world use of this?
Thanks,
Isaac Dunham
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
