Re: open(2) vs fopen(3)

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, moreau francis wrote:
>> 
>> I'm reading git source code and falling on this stupid question:
>> Why sometime open(2) is used and other time fopen(3) is
>> prefered. I'm sorry for this dump question but I have no clue.
>
> fopen() tends to result in easier usage, especially if the file in 
> question is a line-based ASCII file, and you can just use "fgets()" to 
> read it. So fopen is the simple alternative for simple problems.
>
> Using a direct open() means that you have to use the low-level IO 
> functions (I'm ignoring the use of "fdopen()"), but if done right, it has 
> a number of advantages:
>...
>  - error conditions are a lot more obvious and repeatable with the 
>    low-level things, at least so I find personally. Error handling with 
>    stdio routines is _possible_, but probably because almost nobody ever 
>    does it, it's not something that people are conditioned to do, so it 
>    ends up beign "strange".

Another issue related with this is that stdio implementations
tend to have unintuitive interaction with signals, one fine
example of it being the problem we fixed with commit fb7a653,
where on Solaris fgets(3) did not restart the underlying read(2)
upon SIGALRM.

Technically it was a bug on our part not Solaris, but that was
something unexpected to see.