On 2025-01-14 02:43, Lasse Collin wrote:
Pedantic interpretation might be that EILSEQ isn't allowed in this
situation because EOVERFLOW already describes the error condition.
No, because EOVERFLOW is intended for things like inode numbers don't
fit. It is not intended for things like invalid byte sequences.
If you disagree, I suggest taking this up with the Austin Group, who's
in charge of the standard. They're well versed in all the pedantic
interpretations one can imagine. I expect they'd agree with my
interpretation, though.
Other apps on Windows may trip on EILSEQ
We can cross those bridges when we come to them.
There is no perfect solution here. But for 'ls', the only program where
we know this matters, EILSEQ would be better than EOVERFLOW.
