From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4669 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: orc Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Last call for bugfixes for 1.0 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:28:18 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20140315075223.GA27718@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <78ad8fae-b5ca-45d5-9561-54a1038dee82@email.android.com> <20140317013734.GL26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395026907 8831 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2014 03:28:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:28:27 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4673-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Mar 17 04:28:37 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WPOE6-00006j-Qy for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:28:34 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 12150 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2014 03:28:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 12142 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2014 03:28:33 -0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20140317013734.GL26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4669 Archived-At: 17 марта 2014 г. 9:37:34 KRAT, Rich Felker пишет: >On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:34:14AM +0800, orc wrote: >> 15 марта 2014 г. 15:52:23 KRAT, Rich Felker >пишет: >> >I'm hoping to pack up and release 1.0 in the next few days, so >please >> >report any issues that we might be able to fix before releasing. >> > >> >Rich >> >> I probably found a small issue where ptsname() does not set errno >> correctly. In case of error, it always sets errno to -1. > >Are you sure? It looks like something might be wrong but that's not >the behavior I gather from a quick reading of the source. It looks >more to me like errno might just be negated from its proper value. > >Rich Ah, my bad, I was misguided. It returns not -1 but -9 if I pass invalid fd. Still, to interpret errno I need to make it positive number, which is not issue on glibc for example...