elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93

[H . J . Lu]

With glibc 2.1.93, I got

# elm
Cannot lock folder - giving up.  Please try again in a few minutes.

>From strace, I got

open("/var/spool/mail/hjl", O_RDWR)     = 4     
fcntl64(4, F_SETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0}) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not implemented)
fcntl(4, F_SETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0}) = 0
write(1, "\33[?1l\33>", 7^[[?1l^[>)              = 7
write(1, "\33[24;1H\r\n", 9^[[24;1H^M)            = 9
write(1, "\33[2J\33[?47l\0338", 12^[[2J^[[?47l^[8)     = 12    
ioctl(0, SNDCTL_TMR_STOP, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0
write(2, "Cannot lock folder - giving up. "..., 67Cannot lock folder - giving up.  Please try again in a few minutes.) = 67

It looks like elm 2.5.3 may check errno even when fcntl returns 0. I
believe it is a glibc bug. Here is my patch. Someone please double
check if there are any more functions like that need fix.

Thanks.


H.J.
--- /work/gnu/import/libc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/fcntl.c	Thu Sep  7 08:45:36 2000
+++ ./fcntl.c	Thu Sep 21 21:15:25 2000
@@ -50,10 +50,13 @@ __libc_fcntl (int fd, int cmd, ...)
 # ifdef __NR_fcntl64
   if (! __have_no_fcntl64)
     {
+      int saved_errno = errno;
       int result = INLINE_SYSCALL (fcntl64, 3, fd, cmd, arg);
+
       if (result >= 0 || errno != ENOSYS)
 	return result;
 
+      __set_errno (saved_errno);
       __have_no_fcntl64 = 1;
     }
 # endif