[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: sys_errlist deprecated? (ITS#3111)
I've added autodetect support. Please test.
I'll be adding a STRERROR_R macro shortly.
At 10:13 AM 4/24/2004, Kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
>I think I'd like to commit a macro (and autodetection)
>which follows the following prototype:
> const char * STRERROR_R(n,b,s)
>Will use strerror_r (either version) if available in normal
>libc (e.g, will ignore strerror_r only in threading libraries)
>and its flavor detectable. Otherwise, will use sys_errlist
>if available. Otherwise, strerror.
>At 08:19 AM 4/24/2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>>Note that strerror_r() is not terrible portable.
>>>The POSIX defn is:
>>> int strerror_r(int errnum, char *strerrbuf, size_t buflen);
>>This is the cleanest: only look at the buffer
>>>while some systems (like Linux) use:
>>> char *strerror_r(int errnum, char *buf, size_t buflen);
>>This should be the most efficient, because it writes the buffer
>>only if required
>>>and other systems one just uses strerrror() (which on these
>>>systems uses a thread specific buffer unknown error numbers).
>>This is mostly what Howard suggested: strerror is likely to return
>>a constant string, or "unknown error %d" in a static buffer; so if
>>we don't mind about %d (because we already log it before the message)
>>all we need to do is:
>> char *s0 = strerror(-1), *s = strerror(e);
>> if (s == s0)
>> return "Unknown error";
>> return s;
>>However, we cannot count over this behavior forever. I have already
>>reworked things to use strerror_r "consistently"; I also cleaned up things
>>by not using STRERROR() at all where its result is simply ignored.
>>If it is acceptable, I can commit it (and undergo review and further
>> SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497