This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93



"H . J . Lu" wrote:
>      Many library functions can set `errno' to a nonzero value as a
>      result of calling other library functions which might fail.  You
>      should assume that any library function might alter `errno' when
>      the function returns an error.
> 
> From here, I conclude "The glibc functions do not change `errno' when
> they succeed." By not saving/restoring errno, we have changed
> documented glibc behavior. We should be consistent on it.

This doesn't follow. The text immediately above yours says that successful
routines *can* change errno inadvertantly, and that you should not depend
on errno *unless* the call reports failure.

Mark
-- 
Mark S. Brown                                                   bmark@us.ibm.com
Senior Technical Staff Member                          512.838.3926  T/L678.3926
IBM RS/6000 AIX System Architecture                        Mark Brown/Austin/IBM
IBM Corporation, Austin, Texas
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]