This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> > hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) writes: > > > Where can I find it on-line? > > Nowhere. But the X/Open standard might also mention it. Beside, you > can believe me. > > > If it is true, I have to say POSIX is dumb on it. Under Unix, > > usually the negative int return values indicate error. I tried to > > think of any positive int error return values. Are there any? > > All functions introduced by POSIX behave this way. It saves an errno > access which might, as in glibc's case, be a hidden function call. > I don't like this new behavior in return values at all. Why not return -errno? Is that because some functions may return unsigned int? H.J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |