Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 15:21:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: tlambert@primenet.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, fenner@parc.xerox.com, peter@netplex.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bogus errno twiddling by lstat... Message-ID: <199806202021.PAA17948@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199806202002.NAA17957@usr02.primenet.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:02:49 %2B0000 (GMT)) References: <199806202002.NAA17957@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> If, however, you don't like our malloc's current implementation, and >> think that errno should be saved and restored across a successful >> call, and that the lost cycles would be worthwhile, then diffs would >> be perfectly welcome, I'm sure. > Since the malloc.conf file is unnecessarily being looked for in the > printf case (since ld.so already caused it to be looked for, and didn't > find it), I think the redundant call to llok for it is certainly worth > removing. > I would also not save and restore state, except in anticipation of > an error. If the cached value were being used (as it should be), > then the malloc.conf reference shouldn't have been tried (and not being > tried, the errno would not be in danger of being blown). Okay. I agree, cachine the call is helpful. So are you going to hack it up? Best, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806202021.PAA17948>