Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:50:29 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r229945 - in head/sbin: hastctl hastd Message-ID: <20120110225028.GF1694@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <4F0CBF11.6080608@FreeBSD.org> References: <201201102239.q0AMd8i6030635@svn.freebsd.org> <4F0CBF11.6080608@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--oPmsXEqKQNHCSXW7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 02:43:29PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/10/2012 14:39, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > For functions that return -1 on failure check exactly for -1 and not = for > > any negative number. >=20 > what is the likelihood that at some point in the future the semantics > for those functions will change, such that more than one negative value > may be returned? This is of course just being extra careful, but what if the function will start returning negative values different than -1 on success? This works in both direction, but is really only theory. All in all, the manual pages now clearly state that those functions return -1 on failure. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com --oPmsXEqKQNHCSXW7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk8MwLQACgkQForvXbEpPzRVOQCg20IjxPQuumoBdNEqk8UuoPoZ MUUAn3NWShHYJdqaFxg71KAb4Bn7CCdW =oenf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oPmsXEqKQNHCSXW7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120110225028.GF1694>