Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: segfault in strftime

X-seq: zsh-workers 27758
From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: segfault in strftime
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:45:25 +0100
In-reply-to: <100226094731.ZM3981@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Mail-followup-to: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <A73C7D9C-66C5-4BFA-8FB3-8560FE65B529@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100226125256.GC13766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100226150748.GE13766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100226151712.05fbe555@news01> <20100226162130.GF13766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201002261645.o1QGji9R022432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <100226094731.ZM3981@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 2010-02-26 09:47:31 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> That's *probably* safe in this case ... but in general I don't think
> so.  The standards make no guarantee about the value of errno in the
> case where the library call returns "successfully" (however that may
> be defined) -- that is, the implementation is allowed to set errno
> to what the next upcoming error *might* be, and is not required to
> then clear errno before returning success.

It is safe for functions that use errno: "The value of errno may
be set to nonzero by a library function call whether or not there
is an error, provided the use of errno is not documented in the
description of the function in this International Standard."

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

References:
- Re: segfault in strftime
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author