Hi On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 03.11.14 13:46, David Herrmann ([email protected]) wrote: > >> static inline int negative_errno(void) { >> assert_return(errno > 0, -EINVAL); >> return -errno; >> } > > Looks great to me! > > But please add a comment next to it, explaining why to use this. I > mean, we should really clarify that "return -errno" is usually enough, > and "return negative_errno()" is really just about making gcc shut up, > and should not be used for cases unlike the one you ran into.
I pushed this now. It's probably only useful for constructors, as they don't clear the output-parameters on failure. If the return-value is the only output-argument, there's usually no need to use it. Thanks David _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
