This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug libc/19995] Linux syscall return value unnecessarily relies on implementation-defined behaviour


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19995

--- Comment #5 from Michael Tautschnig <mt at debian dot org> ---
So that's good for GCC, and really it's making explicit what
"implementation-defined" means for the case of GCC.

The one question that remains open to me is: WHY do we cast back and forth,
when using a signed (long) int would seemingly spare us any debate about
implementation-definedness?

Thanks a lot,
Michael

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]