Re: [PATCH] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Charles Bailey writes: > ... I think '< 0' is > probably better. In POSIX, we shouldn't ever get a negative value which > isn't -1, but if we ever do it is probably safer to fail. I'll send and > update. Thanks; I was about to type the same reasoning and conclusion ;-) -- To unsubscribe from thi

Re: [PATCH] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Charles Bailey
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:06:57PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > From a quick `git grep '== -1'` and another quick `git grep '< 0'` it appears > to me that we prefer the latter. Maybe you want to adjust it in the patch, > too? I did the same grep and found lots of examples of both. Many

Re: [PATCH] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Charles, On 2015-07-17 14:11, Charles Bailey wrote: > diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c > index 8209f8b..52dbfd0 100644 > --- a/dir.c > +++ b/dir.c > @@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ static const char *get_ident_string(void) > > if (sb.len) > return sb.buf; > - if (uname(&uts)) > +

[PATCH] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Charles Bailey
From: Charles Bailey According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 on success it is valid to return any positive value for success. In particular, Solaris returns 1. Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey