On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:17:06PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I guess we are simultaneously assuming that it is OK to munge errno on > > success in our function, but that fclose() will not do so. Which seems a > > bit hypocritical. Maybe the "if" dance is better. > > Yes. When both ferror() and fclose() are successful, we would > prefer to see the original errno unmolested, so the "if" dance, > even though it looks uglier, is better. The ugliness is limited > to the implementation anyway ;-) > > But it does look ugly, especially when nested inside the existing > code like so.
I think our emails crossed, but our patches are obviously quite similar. My commit message maybe explains a bit more of my thinking. > Stepping back a bit, would this be really needed? Even if the ferror() > does not update errno, the original stdio operation that failed > would have, no? Sure, but we have no clue what happened in between. -Peff
