[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes: > An fprintf returning 0 is a suspicious event; it's easy to imagine > cases where it makes sense, but I don't think I have ever coded one. > Probably >N (where N is the smallest reasonable output, defaulting > to 1) may be a better test in real code. On older systems fprintf returns 0 on success and EOF on failure. > As I recall, on SunOS 4 the printf()s don't return the number of > characters written. I don't recall what they do instead, and have > no access to such machines any more. Probably 0/EOF. sprintf on SunOS returns its first argument. Ian
- [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] pg_dump return status.. Matthew
- Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] pg_dump return status.. Philip Warner
- [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump return status.. Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump return statu... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump return s... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump return status.. Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump return status.. Pete Forman
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump return status... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump return st... Pete Forman
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump retur... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump return status... Bruce Momjian