[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Non-compliant access behavior?
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
Subject: |
Re: Non-compliant access behavior? |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:01:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 |
J de Boyne Pollard, le Thu 24 Dec 2009 09:51:01 -0800, a écrit :
> ST> The problem I encountered is that I couldn't run gcc over
> ST> files in a directory which belonged to a group my I was in.
> ST> I hope you'll too find it quite surprising.
>
> Only inasmuch as gcc is even using access(), whose use is only really
> appropriate in the context of set-UID or set-GID executables,
Then please tell that to gcc people, not me. That's the whole point of
my question mark: yes, POSIX doesn't tell about it so GNU/Hurd is
completely compliant in that regard. But compliancy is also about the
common behavior, and here gcc assumes some behavior of access().
> ST> Be it POSIX-compliancy or not, I believe following
> ST> what gcc thinks is compliant would be useful.
>
> Then you're wrong. It wouldn't be useful. access() isn't useful.
> It's a bad idea whose use should be avoided.
Then please tell that to gcc people, not me.
Samuel