scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: scsh vs. time(), mktime(), and errno

To: Noah Friedman <friedman@splode.com>
Subject: Re: scsh vs. time(), mktime(), and errno
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:26:05 -0500
Cc: scsh@zurich.ai.mit.edu
Reply-to: sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us
> Every system call that I'm aware of either has a special return value which
> indicates whether it failed (which is usually -1), or modifies an argument
> appropriately, or has some other kind of indication of failure.  Even
> exec(2), which shouldn't return *at all* unless there was a failure, makes
> a point of returning -1.  What exceptions do you know of?

One I'm aware of is the BSD getpriority(2) which returns a value which
can legitimately be -1 on a successful return.

Anyhow, this is mooted by the ANSI C standard [ANSI X3.159-1989 if you
want to be really picky; I don't have a more recent standard at hand]:

quoting from the 1989 version of the ansi c spec:

    4.1.3 Errors <errno.h>

    The header <errno.h> defines several macros ...

    ... and
            errno

    which expands to a modifiable lvalue[92] that has type int

    ...

    [92] the macro errno need not be the identifier of an object; It might
    expand to a modifiable lvalue resulting from a function call (for
    example, *errno() ).


                                        - Bill

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>