Re: pipe(2) calling convention: why?
It seems most people liked some things that were in the patch, while
others preferred to keep things as they were. I've just committed a
patch to SVN (r184849) which keeps pipe(2) as it is now, but does some
- I've added kern_pipe(), so we can make linux_pipe() and linux32_pipe()
less ugly (discussed with rdivacky).
- I've also changed the manual page to not mention EFAULT, because we
just get a segmentation fault if we pass an invalid address.
Thanks all for commenting on this topic!
Ed Schouten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----