On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Wes Hardaker <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:01:02 +0200, Bart Van Assche <
> [email protected]> said:
>
> BVA> The above patch only addresses one of the two fopen() calls in the
> BVA> loop. What about the second fopen() call ? Why not to check its
> BVA> return value too ?
>
> Well, you're right I didn't check the second one.
>
> BVA> And, more importantly, if fopen() fails, shouldn't the just created
> entry be
> BVA> removed again from the container ?
>
> If you saw my other response, I actually moved the container insertion
> to below the fopen.
>
> IE, this one:
> [ ... ]
>
Sorry, missed that message. But even that second patch only adds a check for
the return value of one of the two fopen() calls ?
Bart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
