[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fd leak with {fd}>
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: fd leak with {fd}> |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:35:41 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 |
On 11/22/12 5:18 PM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > As an interesting aside it seems not to be possible to close the FD
> within
> > the block either:
> >
> > { echo $fd ; eval exec "$fd>&-" ; } {fd}> /dev/null
>
> But this is not. There should be a way to ensure the fd's survival while
> allowing it to be closed within the block. I will fix this for the next
> version.
>
>
> It may well be closed within the block; I meant to state that externally it
> was visible despite the internal close.
Part of the rationale for the {x} redirection syntax is to give the user
a handle to the file descriptor and allow him to maniuplate it, so it
seems like the shell should honor the user's close request. I think the
shell should not close it when the block exits, so the user can close it
when he chooses.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
- fd leak with {fd}>, Sam Liddicott, 2012/11/16
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Chet Ramey, 2012/11/22
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Sam Liddicott, 2012/11/22
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>,
Chet Ramey <=
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Pierre Gaston, 2012/11/23
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Chet Ramey, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Pierre Gaston, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Pierre Gaston, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Sam Liddicott, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Chet Ramey, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Sam Liddicott, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Chet Ramey, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Chris F.A. Johnson, 2012/11/26
- Re: fd leak with {fd}>, Dennis Williamson, 2012/11/26