| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. | 
| Date: | 2005-12-01 21:06:20 | 
| Message-ID: | 17114.1133471180@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers | 
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Should I just change them all to:
> errno = 0; /* avoid checking result for failure */
No, that's still a completely inaccurate description of the reason
for having the statement.
> or should I add a macro to c.h as:
> 	/* Sometimes we need to clear errno so we can check errno
> 	 * without having to check for a failure value from the function
> 	 * call.
> 	 */	
> 	#define CLEAR_ERRNO \\
> 	do { \
> 		errno = 0; \\
> 	while (0);
I vote "neither".  Anyone who doesn't understand what this is for will
need to go read the C library man pages for a bit anyway.  Nor do I find
"CLEAR_ERRNO" an improvement over "errno = 0".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:11:58 | pgsql: Comment "errno = 0" in a more generic way. | 
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:00:15 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:12:30 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-01 21:01:34 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |