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]

Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93

To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Subject: Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:16:44 -0700
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>,GNU C Library <libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
References: <20000921211643.A6161@lucon.org> <200009220813.e8M8DkR01945@hawking.suse.de> <20000922073141.A20303@lucon.org> <20000922173328.B11108@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20000922084713.A20885@lucon.org> <u8u2b8ctlq.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de>

On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:52:01PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Initially we used to save/restore errno, later we noticed that this is
> not needed.  All new code (at least code that Ulrich and I recently
> added) doesn't save/restore errno - only older code does.  I agree, we
> should unify this, but so far nobody spoke up.
> 

I think it is a bad idea. If we believe it is ok not to save/restore
errno, we should do it for all functions. I can provide a patch if
we are 100% sure that it is ok to do so.

H.J.

References:
- elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93
  - From: Andreas Jaeger

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]