From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B9FFB383543D; Sun, 9 Jan 2022 14:07:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B9FFB383543D From: "crrodriguez at opensuse dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/28730] Extend posix_spawnattr_* interface with more useful features Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 14:07:56 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: crrodriguez at opensuse dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 14:07:56 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28730 --- Comment #5 from Cristian Rodr=C3=ADguez --- (In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #4) > (In reply to Cristian Rodr=C3=ADguez from comment #3) > > do you know by any chance why it was decided to make posix_spawnattr_t = and > > posix_spawn_file_actions_t transparent ? posix says otherwise.. > >=20 > > "for extensibility and consistency with the newer POSIX interfaces, the > > attributes interface has been changed to an opaque data type. This inte= rface > > now consists of the type posix_spawnattr_t.."=20=20 > >=20 > > MacOS and opebsd at least do it this way.. >=20 > POSIX states posix_spawnattr_t and posix_spawn_file_actions_t must be act= ual > types, it does not imposes any restriction to on how it is actually > implemented. The example provided does use a struct with some internal > fields [1]. >=20 So the best way way would be to use the pad space to introduce a an internal opaque struct which we can modify or extend at will ? even with all implementation-defined leisure we still shouldn't break the ABI.. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=