Jim Meyering wrote:
> It *could* perform that test, but I think it is slightly more
> maintainable (no duplication of that potentially nontrivial expression)
> and just as correct to check only "ret < 0".
Not having the duplicated expression is certainly good, if it's
correct to do so (and it seem
Jim Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
...
Hi Jim,
>> -retry:
>> -ret = write(pollInfos[nr].fd, (char *) req, req->len);
>> +ret = safewrite(pollInfos[nr].fd, (char *) req, req->len);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>
> Should this check (ret == req->len) instead? safewrite()
Hi Jim,
comments inline
Jim Meyering wrote:
> diff --git a/proxy/libvirt_proxy.c b/proxy/libvirt_proxy.c
> index d96d3db..a22ba6c 100644
> --- a/proxy/libvirt_proxy.c
> +++ b/proxy/libvirt_proxy.c
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> * proxy_svr.c: root suid proxy server for Xen access to APIs with no
> *
Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:42 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> If I do as you suggest and move the safewrite definition into util.h,
>> and make it static inline, then both problems go away.
>
> Make sure to try and build this with gcc-4.3.0 - remembe
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:42 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> If I do as you suggest and move the safewrite definition into util.h,
> and make it static inline, then both problems go away.
Make sure to try and build this with gcc-4.3.0 - remember that we
un-inlined xstrtol() because of:
int
Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:53:49PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Use safewrite in place of write, in many cases.
>> And add "make syntax-check" rules to ensure no new uses sneak in.
>>
>> There are many uses of write like this:
>>
>> if (write (fd,
