"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the diagnosis, but the fix isn't quite right in general,
> > since the C standard says memcpy can set errno as well.
> >
> > I installed this patch instead, both in gnulib and coreutils.
>
> OK, I just thought, however, that readdir itself is not required
> to preserve the value of errno in case of succesful return. In general,
> it seems a bad idea to check errno without knowing which call might
> have changed it.
If you look at errno values, there must be a strange bug in GNU tar.
Note that in the relevent situation, it should only be important whether
a malloc() return value is NULL or not.
Why should a preserved errno be relevent in case the high level function
does not fail?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
