Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?
From: Barry Margolin (barry.margolin_at_level3.com)
Date: 06/20/03
- Next message: Dhruv: "Re: overloaded operator new, STL and shared objects (more madness)"
- Previous message: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Command not find"
- In reply to: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Next in thread: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Reply: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:13:45 GMT
In article <x7wufhkyj8.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
Sean Burke <burke_sp31415@pacbell.net> wrote:
>So, if you open 255 sockets, thus consuming all of the file
>descriptor thru and beyond 255, a subsequent fopen will fail.
>Presumably with EMFILE.
We agreed that this would fail. The issue under discussion is only whether
it sets errno. The Solaris documentation specifically says that it
doesn't:
fopen() may fail and not set errno if there are no free
stdio streams.
but the empirical evidence contradicts this.
-- Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com Level(3), Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
- Next message: Dhruv: "Re: overloaded operator new, STL and shared objects (more madness)"
- Previous message: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Command not find"
- In reply to: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Next in thread: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Reply: Sean Burke: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: Why fopen fail because of EINTR?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading