David Leonard <d+busy...@adaptive-enterprises.com> writes: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Sam James wrote: > >> } >> - fstat(fd, &st); >> + if (fstat(fd, &st) < 0) { >> + fprintf(stderr, "fixdep: fstat"); >> + perror(filename); >> + exit(2); >> + } >> if (st.st_size == 0) { >> close(fd); >> return; >> @@ -368,7 +372,11 @@ void print_deps(void) >> perror(depfile); >> exit(2); >> } >> - fstat(fd, &st); >> + if (fstat(fd, &st) < 0) { >> + fprintf(stderr, "fixdep: fstat"); >> + perror(depfile); >> + exit(2); >> + } >> if (st.st_size == 0) { >> fprintf(stderr,"fixdep: %s is empty\n",depfile); >> close(fd); > > I worry that the fprintf() may destroy the errno which perror() uses, > so you could get a random error message. > Perhaps remove the fprintf(s) completely? Because the context should be > clear enough from the filename alone that perror displays.
Ah, a great point. Any preference between just stripping the fprintfs vs a better argument to perror, as we do in some places (but not very consistently)? I don't think I have a strong preference. > > David thanks, sam _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox