Date: 16 May 2002 14:14:05 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Makonnen <makonnen@pacbell.net>, freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Port of NetBSD cat(1)'s -f option. Message-ID: <xzpznz0thma.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20020516134044.A349@straylight.oblivion.bg> References: <20020515211758.GB68380@hades.hell.gr> <20020516164332.B1704-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020516134044.A349@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes: > Also, aren't we supposed to test the return values of syscalls explicitly > against -1, and not just < 0? Is a negative return value different from -1 more correct than -1? Should it be silently ignored? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpznz0thma.fsf>