From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23431 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2009 18:53:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 27528 Received: (qmail 26865 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 18:53:22 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.160.41 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SKYBsBzei6cCf4h01TsOAl7ym3OfeIXyH/XPn3XT8Ls=; b=Lt4Uny+nM03QBoPEV6fFExZOMpJDZWPNZJ2pFjl12ovpqliZ9wB3hHldSgQ/ZERPl5 AbQDHe08P6pvFkwMjmsATBwTVaf/MigqO73LIOE+Ky643fai0DqTOLuWaJUOnufh0tFs cw+kDsuAadk0GX7wDoe0eQ+emgor13a2gKUFU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=t3Sr4iAY9z6CPMXEsqTsq1s6LP7ewGyhd+HavpTncSouO7nrWm5cyL4oJLioceGmod 3ACUUvmeULaYS8Mo8a4u6bhXmAiANt1BpZm+v6a5kFQVzWvF+gevLSgWv2UGPPpbzYPO 0qxP0x22wLNd4NFlcbJuPUHZu5I4hj3dG7EQY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: 4wayned@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20090315005826.GC18440@blorf.net> References: <20090315005826.GC18440@blorf.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:53:18 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: f9f2340e48089787 Message-ID: <733654e30912161053v3eeddb8n2fed6f31fe7f8599@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Improving some return-value checking From: Wayne Davison To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555564a132742047add056d --00032555564a132742047add056d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Wayne Davison wrote: > The second is specific to checking the return value of pipe() [...] > I haven't yet patched the various read()/write()/fwrite() calls > that are not checking their return values > I finally got back to this, and checked in some cleanup for both the pipe() calls and the read()/write() calls that were causing compiler warnings. This gets rid of all the "ignoring return value" compiler warnings, and should make some of the read/write calls slightly safer (since they now handle EINTR). There is one remaining FIXME (in exec.c) where I didn't error-handle an mpipe() call. Since it wasn't error-handled before, it will be fine for now, but we may want to figure out how to do an error exit from that point. ..wayne.. --00032555564a132742047add056d--