David Michael <fedora....@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:41 AM, David Michael <fedora....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +int git_stat(const char *path, struct stat *buf)
>>> +{
>>> + int rc;
>>> + rc = stat(path, buf);
>>> + if (buf != NULL)
>>
>> It's a minor thing, but maybe test "!rc" instead of "buf != NULL"?
>
> Okay, it makes sense to only do the conversion for a successful return code.
>
> Should it test for both a zero return code and a non-null pointer? I
> don't know if there are any cases where passing a null pointer is
> legal. The standard doesn't seem to explicitly forbid it. z/OS
> returns -1 and sets errno to EFAULT when stat() is given NULL, but
> this patch should be able to be used on any platform.
Huh? I am confused. Since when is it legal to give NULL as statbuf
to (l)stat(2)?
Wouldn't something like this be sufficient and necessary?
int rc = stat(path, buf);
if (rc)
return rc;
That is, let the underlying stat(2) diagnose any and all problems
(and leave clues in errno) and parrot its return value to the caller
to signal the failure?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
