Greg Stein wrote: > > > Are you suggesting something will change the value of 'errno' during > > this code, such that the errno being tested isn't the value being > > returned?? > > I don't think Ulrich is concerned with *correctness*. His comments are about > resulting code size and performance. I think Ulrich hasn't been clear in > that regard, but you (Jim) are also (seemingly) tending to be a bit > obstinate in wanting to do it your way :-) >
No, Ulrich was *not* clear on what the problem was, and that's the reason why I was being so obstinate, not so much for "my" way but *why* he wanted/needed it the other way. Now that we all know what he was driving at, we're in better shape to address it. For my part, if the use of a temp variable to avoid "too many errno calls" results in measureable differences, then why not. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
