"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the diagnosis, but the fix isn't quite right in general,
> > since the C standard says memcpy can set errno as well.
> >
> > I installed this patch instead, both in gnulib and coreutils.
>
> O
Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding the Austin Group]
>
> On 01/15/2013 02:58 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> >>> That Solaris behavior is contrary to POSIX 2008
> >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/symlink.html
> >>
> >> Where does it say this? I read it through in detail but I d
Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the official
method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
(void) write(fd, buf, len);
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 10:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the
> > official
> > method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
> >
> >
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 09:30 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the
> >>> official
> >>> method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
> >>>
&g
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 09:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> The C standard does not document that '(void) write(...)' is required to
> >> avoid diagnostics, so I don't see the gcc behavior as a bug (yes, it's
> >> annoying beh
