Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-18 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Junio, On 2015-07-17 23:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes: On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: From: Charles Bailey cbaile...@bloomberg.net According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on

[PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Charles Bailey
From: Charles Bailey cbaile...@bloomberg.net According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 on success it is valid to return any positive value for success. In particular, Solaris returns 1.

Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Johannes Schindelin
On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: From: Charles Bailey cbaile...@bloomberg.net According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 on success it is valid to return any positive value for

Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

2015-07-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes: On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote: From: Charles Bailey cbaile...@bloomberg.net According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0 on