Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Junio, On 2015-07-17 23:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: >>> From: Charles Bailey >>> >>> According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a >>> non-negative value on success. Although many implementat

Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: > On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: >> From: Charles Bailey >> >> According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a >> non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 >> on success it is valid to return any posit

Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Johannes Schindelin
On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: > From: Charles Bailey > > According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a > non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 > on success it is valid to return any positive value for success. In > particul

[PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Charles Bailey
From: Charles Bailey According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 on success it is valid to return any positive value for success. In particular, Solaris returns 1. Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey