Re: A getxxx_r version patch

[Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de>]

On Sat, Jul 10, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > 
> >    Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
> >    From: hjl@varesearch.com (H.J. Lu)
> > 
> >    Since we changed the return value of getxxx_r, I added a new version
> >    for each function and kept the old one.
> > 
> > I think you should also set errno since the new functions do not
> > necessarily do this.  The whole point of having getXXbyYY_r returning
> > the error value is avoiding the use of thread-specific data.
> > 
> 
> I don't know what you mean. The new functions return "errno" in case
> of errors. Why do you want to set "errno" with "errno"?

The old functions sets errno and returns -1. But POSIX only says,
that the functions should return the errno value, and not setting errno.
So if the next functions or a later version will only return the errno
value, and doesn't set errno, your "old" functions will not longer work.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk      http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH           Deutschherrenstr. 15-19         90429 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon.  It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.