From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNtYA-0005Ve-Bj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:36:10 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LNtY8-0005UP-KS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:36:09 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34035 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNtY8-0005UK-Ho for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:36:08 -0500 Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.4]:57560) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LNtY7-0004F9-QP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:36:08 -0500 Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D4C4C81E7 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:36:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from laptop (vaf26-2-82-244-111-82.fbx.proxad.net [82.244.111.82]) by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20E84C80B1 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:36:01 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <18800.50657.289614.458425@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [6324] Return -errno on write failure (Gleb Natapov) From: "=?utf-8?q?Fran=C3=A7ois?= Revol" Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:36:25 +0100 CET Message-Id: <2431978291-BeMail@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Fran=C3=A7ois Revol writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [6324] Return -errno on > write failure (Gleb Natapov)"): > > Nooooooooooo > > Please do not this bad broken Unix habit! > > Whatever you think of this, it's not a `Unix habit'. > Both C89 and C99 require the system's errno values to be positive. > ... the value of which is set to a positive error number by > several library functions > > So BeOS is not ANSI C ! And so, well, what =3F It won't change any time soon. Besides, there is no reason a language stantard should dictate such a runtime thing... And for what I've seen from it, it's not consistent with itself, saying non-zero on a line, positive on the next one. Btw, was it available freely at the time =3F I mean don't expect people to comply with something you have to pay for. That's what you get. (hint, POSIX drafts) It's not like any other OS I've seen doesn't violate some standard. Still, everything has been fine for a decade and suddenly people start doing this kind of tricks out of the blue. It's not like considering errno can be !=3D0 is orthogonal to the standard, so supporting BeOS itself would't make the code itself violate ANSI C. Fran=C3=A7ois.