On 11/10/2011 05:57 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
* tests/test-ptsname_r.c: New file.
You are testing that the return value in case of failure is == errno.
This is not documented, neither in the glibc documentation, nor in the
Linux man page. Why should people write
if (result == EINVAL)
when they can just as well write
if (errno == EINVAL)
? The latter code is more future-proof.
Not necessarily. On many of the existing standardized *_r functions,
and more particularly on ptsname_r, POSIX requires that the function
returns an error value, and leaves errno unspecified or requires errno
to be unchanged..
Here's a suggested patch:
--- tests/test-ptsname_r.c.orig Thu Nov 10 13:52:13 2011
+++ tests/test-ptsname_r.c Thu Nov 10 12:38:25 2011
@@ -79,7 +79,6 @@
else
{
ASSERT (result != 0);
- ASSERT (result == errno);
ASSERT (errno == ERANGE);
ASSERT (buffer[0] == 'X');
That's backwards compared to POSIX conventions. If anything, I'd expect
a POSIX standardization of ptsname_r to require the return value to be
ERANGE, and leave errno unspecified.
--
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
