[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Errno Weirdness & Need a `HAVE_RENAME'

From: Gopal V
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Errno Weirdness & Need a `HAVE_RENAME'
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:09:28 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

If memory serves me right, Aditya P. Bansod wrote:
> I figured that was the case, but I put it in support instead. If it belongs
> in engine then the patch that I submitted will need to be changed.

No need to do that ... the engine & support code for a functions should be 
in the same thread (IIRC), so resetting it in either of them is the same ..

Or to be more precise , we may come upon a platform which does not use the
variable "errno" ... then we may have to move the errno code in lib_*.c 
into support/ anyway :-)

> On that same vien, what is the rule of thumb on where to split the code
> between engine and support?

No #ifdef HAVE_* in the internal call code ... which is sort of the rule
of thumb as far as I can see ... 

I know I've made some mistakes with the DNS classes in lib_socket ... 
@see{struct hostent} ... But well, haven't got around to fixing that 
standard violation yet ... real bugs come first :-)

But having said that, I'm taking care not to introduce any such violations
in the future ... 

The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]