Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:13:10 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] libc_r bug: successful close(2) sets errno to ENOTTY Message-ID: <34474.1069755190@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:04:30 %2B0100." <004b01c3b33b$873a67a0$b9844051@insultant.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <004b01c3b33b$873a67a0$b9844051@insultant.net>, "boyd, rounin" write s: >From: "Stefan Farfeleder" <stefan@fafoe.narf.at> >> > errno is meaningful for syscalls after an error (the original >> > message). The fact that other functions also dink with errno is not >> > relevant to that statement. >> >> I read boyd's statement as a contradiction to Jacques' one (only after >> syscall error vs. after library call error). > >some libc functions do mangle errno, but only after an error. > >in my terse statement the intention was to affirm that errno is >meaningless unless an error has ocurred (a syscall being the >simplest case, while random other libc calls may behave in >the same way). Errno is undefined unless the relevant manual page states otherwise. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34474.1069755190>