"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, I just thought, however, that readdir itself is not required > to preserve the value of errno in case of succesful return.
That's correct. It must preserve errno only if it returns NULL at the end of the directory. > In general, it seems a bad idea to check errno without knowing which > call might have changed it. Yes and no. The current savedir propagates failure back to its caller. The caller doesn't know which system call set errno, but the errno value that is propagated is the one that corresponds to the failing system call. As far as savedir's caller is concerned, it's savedir that failed. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? Anyway, I don't see any but in the current savedir with respect to errno handling. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
