GNU bug report logs - #46220
Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing

Previous Next

Package: guile;

Reported by: bug-guile <at> gnu.org

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 21:31:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#46220: closed (Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 10:06:02 +0000
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Sat, 08 May 2021 12:05:32 +0200
with message-id <878s4pa6c3.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#46220: Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #46220,
regarding Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
46220: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46220
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:30:22 +0100
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi guilers,

I've accidentally sent the message to guile-devel instead
of bug-guile.  The bug report is forwarded here.
[Message part 4 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: guile-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 22:13:10 +0100
[Message part 5 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi guilers,

I noticed the following open flags are not defined:
O_NOFOLLOW, O_TMPFILE, O_IGNORE_CTTY, O_NOLINK,
O_SHLOCK, O_EXLOCK, O_ASYNC, O_NOATIME.

Some of these are Hurd-specific, Linux-specific
and BSD-specific.  I'm particularily interested
in O_NOFOLLOW, O_TMPFILE, O_IGNORE_CTTY, O_NOLINK
and O_NOATIME, the others don't matter for me,
though they may be useful for others.

Could extra O_* flags be exported to Guile (in libguile/filesys.c)
on systems where they are defined?

Greetings,
Maxime
-- 
Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
PGP Key: C1F3 3EE2 0C52 8FDB 7DD7  011F 49E3 EE22 1917 25EE
Freenode handle: mdevos
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[Message part 8 (message/rfc822, inline)]
From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 46220-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#46220: Fwd: Some non-standard O_* flags are missing
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 12:05:32 +0200
Hi Maxime,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> skribis:

> From d769a75962c64804f354a0133494491626b8b2dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:03:22 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Define `O_NOFOLLOW' and various other flags when supported.
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> * libguile/filesys.c (scm_init_filesys): Define ‘O_IGNORE_CTTY’,
>   ‘O_NOLINK’, ‘O_NOFOLLOW’, ‘O_PATH’, ‘O_TMPFILE’, ‘O_SHLOCK’,
>   ‘O_EXLOCK’, ‘O_ASYNC’, ‘O_NOATIME’, ‘O_DIRECTORY’, ‘O_CLOEXEC’
>   and ‘O_DIRECT’ when available.

Pushed as 553c82cee924f0bada27f8209c3bcb28be407953, followed with a NEWS
update.

Thanks!

Ludo’.


This bug report was last modified 4 years and 70 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.