> Hmm, in that case errnum must be set to 0. What about the attached > patch, which prints the existing message if errnum == 0, and the new > and improved only for errnum > 0?
OK. Thanks for the patch. FX
> Hmm, in that case errnum must be set to 0. What about the attached > patch, which prints the existing message if errnum == 0, and the new > and improved only for errnum > 0?
OK. Thanks for the patch. FX