Re: ERANGE strikes again on my Windows build; RFH

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 30.12.19 um 19:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder:

>>                                                                    when
>> errno is meaningful for a function for a given return value, the usual
>> convention is
>>
>>  (1) it *always* sets errno for errors, not conditionally
>
> You seem to understand that errno isn't set somewhere where it should be
> set.

On the contrary: this caller is using errno as an error *indicator*
instead of a way of *distinguishing* between errors (or to put it
another way, this caller is treating `errno == 0` as a meaningful
condition).  This means the calling code is buggy.

[...]
>> Do you have more details about the case where read_object is expected
>> to produce errno == 0?  I'm wondering whether we forgot to set 'errno
>> = ENOENT' explicitly somewhere.
>
> I don't think that forgetting to set ENOENT is the problem.
>
> It happens reproducibly in test 5 of t0410-partial-clone:

Thanks, will try it out.