On 02/05/2011 01:28 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:04:16PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Our strerror_r is lousy (it doesn't even match glibc's behavior); see my
>> request to the newlib list.
>
> We really should just implement strerror_r in errno.cc. It doesn't make
>
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:04:16PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>Our strerror_r is lousy (it doesn't even match glibc's behavior); see my
>request to the newlib list.
We really should just implement strerror_r in errno.cc. It doesn't make
sense to have two different implementations
cgf
Our strerror_r is lousy (it doesn't even match glibc's behavior); see my
request to the newlib list. But even if newlib swaps over to a
POSIX-compliant strerror_r, I argue that for Linux compatibility (not to
mention backwards compatibility with existing programs), we need to
continue to provide s
