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

"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]