This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
"H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes: |> On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 06:37:18PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: |> > My copy of the manual says that: |> > |> > ... you should not use `errno' to determine _whether_ a call |> > failed. The proper way to do that is documented for each |> > function. _If_ the call the failed, you can examine `errno'. |> > |> |> Read my code again. It does just that. It only assumes errno is |> unchanged when bar () returns 0 since glibc manual says so. And this is what is _broken_, and always has been. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab "And now for something SuSE Labs completely different." Andreas.Schwab@suse.de SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |