From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thorsten Kukuk To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: A getxxx_r version patch Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 08:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990710172010.A10939@Wotan.suse.de> References: <199907101211.OAA00568@delius.kettenis.nl> <19990710151543.AC3C857B9@ocean.lucon.org> X-SW-Source: 1999-07/msg00017.html 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.