In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "boyd, rounin" write s: >From: "Stefan Farfeleder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
