Re^3: Why does fpathconf give "bad file descriptor"?

Don't you use warnings?

$ perl -MPOSIX -wle'print fpathconf(*STDOUT, _PC_PIPE_BUF)'
Argument "*main::STDOUT" isn't numeric in subroutine entry at -e line 
+1.
4096

$ perl -MPOSIX -wle'print fpathconf(*FOO, _PC_PIPE_BUF)'
Name "main::FOO" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Argument "*main::FOO" isn't numeric in subroutine entry at -e line 1.
4096
[download]

And yes, they are being interpreted as zero.

$ perl -wle'print 0+*STDOUT'
Argument "*main::STDOUT" isn't numeric in addition (+) at -e line 1.
0

$ perl -wle'print 0+*FOO'
Name "main::FOO" used only once: possible typo at -e line 1.
Argument "*main::FOO" isn't numeric in addition (+) at -e line 1.
0
[download]

Comment on Re^3: Why does fpathconf give "bad file descriptor"? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Why does fpathconf give "bad file descriptor"? by ReturnOfThelonious (Beadle) on Mar 31, 2010 at 20:57 UTC
His original code gives no warnings. And 0 + $wd doesn't evaluate to 0. I think it evaluates to the address of the object. Looking at the code for fpathconf in glibc, I see that, for 16 of the 21 configuration parameters, fd is ignored—except to check that it is >= 0. So I think what's happening is that when the objects are being allocated above (void *)((unsigned int)-1 >> 1), when it's passed as an int, it's negative, so it gives an error.	[reply]
Re^5: Why does fpathconf give "bad file descriptor"? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 31, 2010 at 22:05 UTC
Ah! He said glob in Re^2, but he's actually passing a ref to a glob in the OP (which becomes a number with no warning).	[reply]
Re^6: Why does fpathconf give "bad file descriptor"? by madscientist (Novice) on Apr 01, 2010 at 01:56 UTC
Yes, sorry, I was unclear: the code I am using is identical to my original post so I'm using a ref. I do indeed use -w and use strict always.	[reply]