Hi Gleydson, Gleydson Soares wrote on Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 05:50:00PM -0300:
> uname(3) function returns 0 on successful and -1 on failure. > "non-negative value" is wrong here. It is not wrong. When uname(3) succeeds, it does return a non-negative value, even though that may always be 0 depending on the particular implementation. The patch is not OK. POSIX allows implementations of uname(3) to return values greater than 0 on success. So your patch might goad the unwary into writing non-portable code. Yours, Ingo > Index: uname.3 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/gen/uname.3,v > retrieving revision 1.15 > diff -u -p -r1.15 uname.3 > --- uname.3 21 Jan 2014 03:15:45 -0000 1.15 > +++ uname.3 9 Oct 2016 17:50:16 -0000 > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Machine hardware platform. > .Sh RETURN VALUES > The > .Fn uname > -function returns a non-negative value if successful; > +function returns 0 if successful; > otherwise the value -1 is returned and the global variable > .Va errno > is set to indicate the error.
