yet another "pedantic" patch
Fri Sep 14 13:43:00 GMT 2001
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:08:49AM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>Friday, 14 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor email@example.com wrote:
>>>CF> Can I suggest that you modify the check_null_empty_* to pass
>>>CF> in an errno that should be used in the case of an empty string?
>>>CF> You are special casing checks to force an EINVAL.
>>>neither SUSv2 nor posix draft say what symlink should do if first
>>>argument is empty string. actually, posix say that symlink() shouldn't
>>>care for its validity as filesystem object at all, and this can be
>>>treated as if empty string is allowed as symlink value.
>>>So, should we eliminate (topath == '\0') check altogether?
>>>Of course, after verifying that symlink resolution code won't break on
>CF> Yes. I guess we should eliminate this then. It will probably require
>CF> another special case check for symlink.
>it looks like current symlink code handles empty string in symlink
>contents without any trouble, but i want to give it a bit more
>>>CF> Hmm. I wonder if EINVAL is always appropriate for an empty string.
>>>CF> It could just be wrong in check_null_empty_str.
>>>otherwise, i think that allowing the caller to specify desired errno
>>>explicitly in call to check_null_empty_str_errno() is a good thing.
>i've removed checks that were forcing EINVAL (leaving those that don't
>relate to check_null_empty_*, however)
>it turned out that current check_null_empty_* are ok, and there's no
>actual need to add errno parameters to them. only place were empty
>string in parameter is known to cause error is when it's file or
>directory name. in that case ENOENT is pretty adequate, just as EFAULT
>in case of NULL or invalid pointer.
It looks ok except for this:
+ if (check_null_empty_str (topath) == EFAULT)
+ set_errno (EFAULT);
+ goto done;
+ if (check_null_empty_str_errno (frompath))
+ goto done;
There is no reason for this duplication is there? Can't this just be
More information about the Cygwin-patches