martong added a comment. In D135360#3885494 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135360#3885494>, @balazske wrote:
> If we look only at the C standard we can not tell much about if the functions > should set `errno`. It seems that setting `errno` is totally > implementation-dependent, except for a few functions that mention `errno`. > These are `fgetpos`, `fsetpos`, `ftell` and should set `errno` to a positive > value on error (but there is no guarantee that value of `errno` is preserved > if no error occurs). And `errno` is always positive. This is different than > what the checker currently does (with the new patches). Probably this should > be a discourse question? Okay then, I think it is worth to have a discourse question. But you could ask the wider "Clang" community, so I would not post the question as something that is related strictly to the static analyzer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135360/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135360 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
