elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93

[H . J . Lu]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:33:28PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 07:31:41AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > |> 
> > > |> It looks like elm 2.5.3 may check errno even when fcntl returns 0.
> > > 
> > > This is broken.  The value of errno is only defined if the syscall failed.
> > > 
> > 
> > Elm may be broken. But it is no excuse for glibc to mess with errno.
> 
> Why should glibc work around bugs in broken packages?
> 

Take a look at glibc and ask why we have to save/restore errno all
over places where we support both new and old system calls. There are
reasons behind that. I don't recall the details. Someone may remember
it.


H.J.