On Saturday 14 January 2012 08:21:27 Richard Braun wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > > + if (sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &omask, NULL) != 0) > > + ret_val = -1; > > If you consider there is no need to check the return value of > sigprocmask() (which should only fail if parameters are invalid AIUI), > feel free to adjust that part.
i am inclined in dropping these checks since there's no realistic way they
could fail (where something else wasn't broken already). let's see if anyone
else has an opinion ...
before your patch (x86_64):
417 0 0 417 1a1 libc/stdlib/system.os
current goto one:
432 0 0 432 1b0 libc/stdlib/system.os
no error checking:
412 0 0 412 19c libc/stdlib/system.os
not only did you fix standards compliance, but you managed to shrink it at the
same time. good on you!
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
