Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the glibc manual, the result of setjmp must not be
> assigned like diskfs_catch_exception does: it must be either
> immediately used in a do/while/for/if/switch statement or
> ignored. Has GCC relaxed this restriction?
Blech. Any
From: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 May 2000 10:03:52 +0300
According to the glibc manual, the result of setjmp must not be
assigned like diskfs_catch_exception does: it must be either
immediately used in a do/while/for/if/switch statement or
ignored. Has G
According to the glibc manual, the result of setjmp must not be
assigned like diskfs_catch_exception does: it must be either
immediately used in a do/while/for/if/switch statement or
ignored. Has GCC relaxed this restriction?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> AND diskfs_catch_exceptions fails (this is a rather strong assumption, I
> don't know under which circumstances it might happen).
diskfs_catch_exception takes its return value from setjmp() so it
can't fail when it first returns.
It can return a nonzero value later i
Package: hurd
Version: N/A
Severity: normal
Hi,
again, I have no test case for this report, but only analysis of the code.
I am sure *if* it can occur, it is quite rare, so it's not urgent.
In ext2fs/pager.c (diskfs_grow), it seems that a file could shrink by one
block. Assume new_end_block > e
