> > The answer is that if you're compiled single-threaded, it's
> > perfectly legal.
> > If you're multi-threaded, it's not.
>
> I guess by "legal" you mean that it has defined behaviour.
Yes, that's correct.
> Both the C99 standard and SUS have this nice warning in it. In C99:
>
>
> Well, I'm late to this discussion, but it would seem to me that quite
> a few things are wrong with that ...
> First, my_errno=&errno; might be more appropriate, after all, you need
> to reference the address of errno, not the current value, right? But that
> would also assume errno is declared
void foo(void)
{
static int *my_errno=NULL;
if(my_errno==NULL) my_errno=errno;
// code that uses 'my_errno' as if it were 'errno'
}
No, this is not legal code under the POSIX standard at all.
Since this code is single-threaded only, what POSIX standard are you talking
about? The pthreads s
>> void foo(void)
>> {
>> static int *my_errno=NULL;
>> if(my_errno==NULL) my_errno=errno;
>> // code that uses 'my_errno' as if it were 'errno'
>> }
> No, this is not legal code under the POSIX standard at all.
Since this code is single-threaded only, what POSIX standard are you talking
abou
