[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:35:08 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: errno (was: Weekly reports - B)
Rich,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:54:18AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> ... errno is a macro and has been for a
> long time (ever since threads) on most systems. It's required by the
> standard to be an lvalue macro.
Any idea why glibc has __set_errno() internally instead of assigning to
its errno directly, then? The implementation for __set_errno() does a
direct assignment anyway. What did the glibc developers need
__set_errno() for if errno is required to be an lvalue, and do they
still need __set_errno() or is it legacy?
Meanwhile, I continue to use __set_errno() in my glibc patches, at least
for consistency with upstream's code.
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
