[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches
From: |
Harald Geyer |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches |
Date: |
Thu, 26 May 2005 17:47:02 +0200 |
> | Hm, ok then this probably isn't that much of an issue as I thought before
> | Is fprintf(stderr, "...") ok? After all it should be unbuffered?
>
> No, stdio isn't OK, even if supposedly unbuffered. There's too much
> state and context kept in there. Even if it works on one implementation
> of libc that manages output to an unbuffered FILE * without touching (as
> in altering) the FILE * at all, there's no guarantee than any other
> implementation will do the same thing.
Ok, then this should be changed too, in case anybody wants to keep
vfork(). But I still think it's better to switch to fork() - nmh doesn't
obey the rules necessary to use vfork() even if it isn't that bad as
it seemed to me in the beginning.
Harald
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Tet, 2005/05/22
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Oliver Kiddle, 2005/05/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Mike O'Dell, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, mlh, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches,
Harald Geyer <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/27