Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 7.1.4 of the C89 spec states, "The value of errno ... is never
> set to zero by any library function." I am assuming that getlogin_r and
> probably most other GNULIB functions should act like library functions
> when possible?
It sounds reasonable to me to stick to the C convention for errno.
(Sorry, I'd forgotten that rule.)
On the other hand, there's no need to restore errno, and apps
shouldn't depend on its being preserved.
I installed this. It should be enough to conform to the C convention,
right?
2005-05-27 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* getlogin_r.c (getlogin_r): Don't set errno to 0 on return.
Index: getlogin_r.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/getlogin_r.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -p -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- getlogin_r.c 25 May 2005 19:14:06 -0000 1.2
+++ getlogin_r.c 28 May 2005 06:11:39 -0000 1.3
@@ -44,8 +44,15 @@ getlogin_r (char *name, size_t size)
errno = 0;
n = getlogin ();
+
+ /* A system function like getlogin_r is never supposed to set errno
+ to zero, so make sure errno is nonzero here. ENOENT is a
+ reasonable errno value if getlogin returns NULL. */
+ if (!errno)
+ errno = ENOENT;
+
if (!n)
- return errno ? errno : ENOENT;
+ return errno;
nlen = strlen (n);
if (size <= nlen)
return ERANGE;
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
