[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure? |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:26:59 +0200 |
Oskar Liljeblad <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't know if this is necessary or necessarily correct, but
> it seems getdelim doesn't always set errno on failure (when it
> returns -1).
>
> From what I can tell, the test below (needed < cur_len) is to
> test for overflow.
Right.
How about using ENOMEM instead?
> Oskar Liljeblad (address@hidden)
...
> @@ -86,6 +91,7 @@ getdelim (char **lineptr, size_t *n, int
>
> if (needed < cur_len)
> {
> + errno = EOVERFLOW;
- getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Oskar Liljeblad, 2005/08/23
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Oskar Liljeblad, 2005/08/23
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Bruno Haible, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Jim Meyering, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Bruno Haible, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Oskar Liljeblad, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Jim Meyering, 2005/08/24
- Re: ISO C 99 versus POSIX 2001, Bruno Haible, 2005/08/24
- Re: ISO C 99 versus POSIX 2001, Paul Eggert, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Oskar Liljeblad, 2005/08/24
- Re: getdelim doesn't set errno on failure?, Derek Price, 2005/08/31