Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:30:13 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/fsck fsutil.h Message-ID: <20031231032019.G1268@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpznda8t0m.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200312271354.hBRDs3CN092828@repoman.freebsd.org> <xzpznda8t0m.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > Declare perror(). We define and use a home made version of perror(3) > > that can't simply be removed (although it has the same interface as > > perror(3)) since it is very different (it prints on stdout, doesn't > > always print the program name, and sometimes exits). Declare it to > > get a reminder of this brokenness when WARNS is increased enough. > > Why not just rename it to not_perror()? Because it should be fixed better. fsck_ffs gets by without any perror() function, and fsck_ffs's other error reporting functions are subtly different. I haven't decided whether fsck_ffs should be more like fsck_msdosfs or vice versa. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031231032019.G1268>