Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:28:34 -0400 From: "Bohne, Peter" <Peter.Bohne@hboc.com> To: "'andrew@ugh.net.au'" <andrew@ugh.net.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: libc_r/_read(), should the errno be reset to 0? Message-ID: <35BEC7ED0A15D21199F000805F6F6D6A01CB00E5@bldexc01ntms.clinicom.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Right - but unless I'm mis-remembering the original post (which I may well be), your *second* read() succeeded, but errno was still set to EAGAIN, which was causing you some sort of headache. My apologies if I've got my memory mixed up - happens all the time :-) pete > -----Original Message----- > From: andrew@ugh.net.au [mailto:andrew@ugh.net.au] > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 10:25 AM > To: Bohne, Peter > Cc: FengYue; hackers@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: RE: libc_r/_read(), should the errno be reset to 0? > > > > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Bohne, Peter wrote: > > > Anytime you make a call that can potentially set errno, and > you are planning > > to *check* errno afterwards, you have to set errno to 0 > yourself. Once a > > ...but you would only be checking errno if the call failed > and if the call > failed then it will have set errno. > > Andrew > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35BEC7ED0A15D21199F000805F6F6D6A01CB00E5>