[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:52:20 +0100 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 01/04/2013 08:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> Do we even
>> know of platforms where fwrite will fail on ENOMEM without setting the
>> error indicator?
>
> I don't know of any, no. I am assuming Jim ran into one
> at some point, but if we don't know of any, perhaps we should
Back when I first tried to trigger that bug in glibc, I found a gdb bug ;-)
so it's been a while. I don't know.
> leave the code alone, and just add a comment saying that we're
> making an assumption that seems to be valid even though POSIX
> doesn't require it.
I would be happy with that.
>> wouldn't it better to still just call fwrite(), but
>> check for an error return, and if so, use the fseterr module
>
> Sure, I suppose, though it's hard to get excited about optimizing
> for dubious platforms.
- [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, 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
- 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 <=
- Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/04