On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:09:50 + (UTC)
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> >IMO it's incorrect to say 0 is an "undefined error". It's defined as
> >success by nearly every syscall. The emitted string should reflect
> >that, even if [sic] Posix says so. Perhaps,
>
> Actually not;
Hi.
"James K. Lowden" wrote:
|mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
|> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
|>>See here:
|>>http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
Well, btw., the MUA i maintain forks, keeping a communication pipe
to its parent, then c
jklow...@schemamania.org ("James K. Lowden") writes:
>> Well, if calling strerror(0) is a bug, then usually because it's
>> called after an error condition that didn't set errno.
>Has that happened to you? I feel sure that's never happened to me, but
>maybe I'm less adventurous.
Happened all
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:09:50PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Actually not; syscalls set errno on error, don't clear errno on success [1].
> Thus it is incorrect code to test errno if the syscall succeeded. It shows
> nothing, try:
Actually, it is even worse. errno is essentially *undefined*
In article <20160324125858.516aa36bc70bddd1b180e...@schemamania.org>,
James K. Lowden wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:29:39 + (UTC)
>mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
>
>> >(I agree that calling strerror(0) is odd and a likely sign of a bug,
>> >but that's separate from complying wit
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:29:39 + (UTC)
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
> >(I agree that calling strerror(0) is odd and a likely sign of a bug,
> >but that's separate from complying with standards when compliance
> >isn't harmful.)
>
> Well, if calling strerror(0) is a bug, then usu
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:18:13 + (UTC)
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
> >See here:
> >http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
>
> ... handling crashing programs reliably
>
> isn't a worthwhile goal to me.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
> >>
> >> [CX] [Option Start] I
> POSIX file locking over NFS [...] relies on userspace daemons on
> client and server which just never seem to work all that well.
Or are plain missing on your favourite OS. Sigh.
g...@ir.bbn.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>Why do you find it questionable? If POSIX says the string must be empty
>or indicate there is no error, what's wrong with following POSIX?
>(I agree that calling strerror(0) is odd and a likely sign of a bug, but
>that's separate from complying with standar
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:55:25AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> Lets go back to the original question.
>
> On 20/03/2016 09:26, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
> >
> >> So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
> >
> > Does it wor
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
>>
>> [CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error number,
>> the message string shall indica
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
>
> [CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error number,
> the message string shall indicate what error occurred; if the value of
On 24/03/2016 12:47, Michael van Elst wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
>> If it doesn't work on NFS and you care so much, please spend your time
>> fixing NFS
>
> If you want to change things you should not try to pass your responsibility
> to someone else.
But with regards to
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>If it doesn't work on NFS and you care so much, please spend your time
>fixing NFS
If you want to change things you should not try to pass your responsibility
to someone else.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serp
On 24/03/2016 12:04, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
>>
>> [CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error number,
>> the message string shall indicate what error occurred; if the value of
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
>
> [CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error number,
> the message string shall indicate what error occurred; if the value of
> errnum is zero, the message string shall either be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24.03.2016 12:49, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> POSIX extension to ISO C says:
>
> [CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error
> number, the message string shall indicate what error occurred; if
> the value of errnum is zero, the mess
Lets go back to the original question.
On 20/03/2016 09:26, Michael van Elst wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
>> So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
>
> Does it work on NFS root?
After taking on board what everyone has said, my considered a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
POSIX extension to ISO C says:
[CX] [Option Start] If the value of errnum is a valid error number,
the message string shall indicate what error occurred; if the value of
errnum is zero, the message string shall either be an empty string or
indicate
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>See here:
>http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
... handling crashing programs reliably
isn't a worthwhile goal to me.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
21 matches
Mail list logo
