Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:35:41 -0800 (PST) From: Chuck Rouillard <chuckr@opus.sandiegoca.ncr.com> To: "Tim J. Robbins" <tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au> Cc: <freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>, Chuck Rouillard <chuckr@opus.sandiegoca.ncr.com> Subject: Re: pathchk - review Message-ID: <20020206142317.S9114-100000@opus.sandiegoca.ncr.com> In-Reply-To: <20020206195629.A37672@descent.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tim J. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 11:54:26PM -0800, Chuck Rouillard wrote:
>
> > A revised `pathchk' is being submitted for review.
[snip]
> In pathchk.c, I think it'd be better to use the warn and err family of
> functions instead of fprintf and perror ("Use err(3) or warn(3), do not roll
> your own.")
Well, I chose fprintf and perror for appearance reasons.
The SUS spec. says we must indicate the error detected and the
offending pathname. The appearance issue arises when _long_
pathnames are encountered and, by design, the err/warn family
of functions -appends- the error string. Thus, the error string
seems lost when appended to such _long_ pathnames. Use of
fprintf elsewhere is solely for consistency.
Thoughts?
> Other than those few nits, it looks fine.
Thanks!
> Tim
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020206142317.S9114-100000>