Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 17:13 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 20:53 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 21:29 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:36 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:43 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 03:38 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:02 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:05 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Göran Weinholt
(23 Apr 2020 10:54 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:09 UTC)
|
Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:30 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:44 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:47 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:59 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 15:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 15:20 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:02 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:03 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:14 UTC)
|
current directory and openat() et al
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: current directory and openat() et al
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 13:56 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Sebastien Marie
(23 Apr 2020 13:32 UTC)
|
Definition of working directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 13:51 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:07 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Sebastien Marie
(23 Apr 2020 15:31 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:24 UTC)
|
Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:38 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:48 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 16:19 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 15:41 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 23:58 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
Normalizing the current directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:39 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:55 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory Lassi Kortela (23 Apr 2020 12:10 UTC)
|
Using paths that are searchable but not completely readable
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 12:30 UTC)
|
Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 14:13 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:16 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:07 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 16:14 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 17:26 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(23 Apr 2020 22:17 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 08:43 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 11:37 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 12:22 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(24 Apr 2020 12:28 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(26 Apr 2020 09:19 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(27 Apr 2020 22:46 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(27 Apr 2020 23:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(28 Apr 2020 00:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(28 Apr 2020 00:56 UTC)
|
os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:23 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Duy Nguyen
(29 Apr 2020 09:28 UTC)
|
current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:43 UTC)
|
Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:47 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:49 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
John Cowan
(29 Apr 2020 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 13:14 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 13:25 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:31 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:45 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 14:12 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 16:21 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 04:02 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 02:49 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 06:12 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:19 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:53 UTC)
|
Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 12:14 UTC)
|
Re: Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 17:00 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
hga@xxxxxx
(28 Apr 2020 01:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(28 Apr 2020 01:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Apr 2020 07:11 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(30 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 18:38 UTC)
|
> No Gambit does not use realpath() because it is more portable in my experience to use the pattern: > > chdir(dir); > getcwd(normalized_dir, len); > > with a lock around that to avoid interference with other OS threads when configured with --enable-multiple-threaded-vms . > > Maybe lib/os_files.c should be extended to allow using realpath() if it is available. Your getcwd() approach may infact be smarter. getcwd() is only specified to return guarantees an absolute path, whereas realpath() needs to resolve symlinks as well. <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/getcwd.html> That page also has a warning about the possibility of getcwd() failing, I don't know how relevant this scenario is: > If a program is operating in a directory where some (grand)parent directory does not permit reading, getcwd() may fail, as in most implementations it must read the directory to determine the name of the file. This can occur if search, but not read, permission is granted in an intermediate directory, or if the program is placed in that directory by some more privileged process (for example, login). Including the [EACCES] error condition makes the reporting of the error consistent and warns the application developer that getcwd() can fail for reasons beyond the control of the application developer or user. Some implementations can avoid this occurrence (for example, by implementing getcwd() using pwd, where pwd is a set-user-root process), thus the error was made optional. Since this volume of POSIX.1-2017 permits the addition of other errors, this would be a common addition and yet one that applications could not be expected to deal with without this addition.