From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6900 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 22:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6875 invoked by uid 71); 9 May 2003 22:26:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030509222601.6873.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: zack@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: preprocessor/7312: bootstrap failure due to invalid use of errno Reply-To: Zack Weinberg X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00837.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/7312; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Zack Weinberg To: Neil Booth Cc: Bruno Haible , gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/7312: bootstrap failure due to invalid use of errno Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:24:56 -0700 Neil Booth writes: > Bruno Haible wrote:- > >> Zack Weinberg writes: >> > At that point in the code, >> > nothing has been done to give errno a meaningful value, so ->err_no >> > should just be cleared to 0. >> >> Well, I thought (and still think) that 'errno' here means the error >> status from cpp_simplify_path. See the comments at the head of the >> function cpp_simplify_path. >> >> I also think that validate_pch() should not ignore this error status. > > I agree that Bruno's original patch is the right one. Would you please check it in, then? I'm in the middle of a messy unrelated project, and not in a position to test stuff. zw