On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 05:39:52PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 11:00, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > > int *func_call(); > > > > #define errno *func_call() > > > >=20 > > > > I don't see the problem with "return errno;" though. > > > > > > The problem is not > > > > > > return errno; > > > > > > it is > > > > > > return errno ? errno : EINVAL; > > > > > > > Are you suggesting something will change the value of 'errno' during > > this code, such that the errno being tested isn't the value being > > returned?? > > I don't think Ulrich is concerned with *correctness*. His comments are about > resulting code size and performance. I think Ulrich hasn't been clear in > that regard, but you (Jim) are also (seemingly) tending to be a bit > obstinate in wanting to do it your way :-)
Yeah, I definately didn't understand Ulrich's concerns until he specifically stated what he was trying to solve. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
