[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fd leak with {fd}>
From: |
Sam Liddicott |
Subject: |
Re: fd leak with {fd}> |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:18:50 +0000 |
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> On 11/16/12 10:47 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > Repeated executions of: { echo $fd ; } {fd}> /dev/null
> > will emit different numbers, indicating that fd is not closed when the
> > block completes.
>
> This is intentional. Having been given a handle to the file descriptor,
> the shell programmer is assumed to be able to manage it himself.
>
> > 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.
So this is probably a double no-bug
thanks for your attention
Sam
- 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 <=
- 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