Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:26:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199904262026.QAA24330@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <199904252128.VAA51774@out4.ibm.net> (snowball3@usa.net)
Subject: Re: fsext patches for dup and dup2
References:  <199904252128 DOT VAA51774 AT out4 DOT ibm DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> Since the only good use of adding fsext code to dup{2} is to let the fsext 
> handler update state information, then they should be modified to 

No, that's not the *only* good use.  Imagine having a TCP stream
that's dup'd.  You'd need to do more than fiddle a few pointers.  In
fact, it may not even be a dup-able handle.  I think leaving it to the
extension is the best way, because we can't predict what the extension
will need to do.