This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.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] |
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:33:28PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 07:31:41AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > |> > > > |> It looks like elm 2.5.3 may check errno even when fcntl returns 0. > > > > > > This is broken. The value of errno is only defined if the syscall failed. > > > > > > > Elm may be broken. But it is no excuse for glibc to mess with errno. > > Why should glibc work around bugs in broken packages? > Take a look at glibc and ask why we have to save/restore errno all over places where we support both new and old system calls. There are reasons behind that. I don't recall the details. Someone may remember it. H.J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |