Brian Hulley wrote: >> The only way to solve this problem seems to be to wrap all >> calls in C-functions that take care of reading GetLastError. >> Not that it's impossible, just very annoying. > > If there is no better solution, would it be possible on failure to > somehow enter a critical section and repeat the call that caused the > failure and then call get last error and exit the critical section so > that normal calls would be fast but only failed calls would be slow?
In some (many) cases, yes, but for example with async IO you really don't want to do this. Some "errors" still cause async notification. Gut instinct tells me repeating system calls might also cause atomicity issues, but I don't have an example. Best regards, --Esa _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
