Philip Guenther <[email protected]> writes:
>
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2016, Gleydson Soares wrote:
> > uname(3) function returns 0 on successful and -1 on failure.
> > "non-negative value" is wrong here.
>
> Hmm, that's a direct quote from the standard. While our implementation
> only returns zero on success, an application which checked for a return
> value of exactly zero would be non-portable.
>
>
> Philip
I stlumbled upon it, while reading uname(1) code.
src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c:104
if (uname(&u))
err(1, NULL);
Index: uname.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -p -r1.17 uname.c
--- uname.c 24 Dec 2015 15:01:24 -0000 1.17
+++ uname.c 9 Oct 2016 18:41:31 -0000
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
print_mask = PRINT_SYSNAME;
}
- if (uname(&u))
+ if (uname(&u) == -1)
err(1, NULL);
if (print_mask & PRINT_SYSNAME) {
