Jeff Trawick wrote: >We never do anything with errno in our logging functions. > >We can figure out whether or not there is an apr_status_t to deal with >by comparing the appropriate parameter with 0/APR_SUCCESS only, with >no regard to APLOG_NOERRNO. > >APLOG_NOERRNO made sense before because errno wasn't an explicit >parameter. > >The only conceivable use is so the caller can pass non-zero for the >apr_status_t but turn on the APLOG_NOERRNO flag so that no error >information is logged. No sleep would be lost here over that >feature. >
+1 --Brian
