[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:08:25 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 |
On 01/04/2013 12:58 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> AFAIK, that comment is still valid
I can put the comment back but I'd like to word it
so that I understand it -- currently I don't.
Could you explain a bit more about the problem?
First, I just now reread the C99 standard as well
as POSIX-1.2008, and I don't see how either
standard permits fputc to fail without
setting the error indicator.
Second, if the C standard actually does let fputc fail without
setting the error indicator, then why did we go through
the effort of removing __wur from glibc's fwrite
prototype? If that's really what the standard allows,
then portable code should look at fwrite's return
in all cases, in order to detect write errors reliably.
- [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/03
- [PATCH 2/3] unicodeio: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/03
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Jim Meyering, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Jim Meyering, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Eric Blake, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Jim Meyering, 2013/01/04
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/04