Date:	Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:11:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200004232111.RAA20298@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200004231439.KAA01571@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:39:43 -0400)
Subject:	Re: EILSEQ in errno.h
References:	<200004231348 DOT PAA22098 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <200004231439 DOT KAA01571 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:39:43 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > The C99 standard specifies a third error value for errno.h, EILSEQ.
> > Should we insert in between EDOM and ERANGE (like it is in the
> > standard document), and thereby pushing the values of ERANGE and the
> > rest up one step?
> 
> Changing error values would break third party precompiled libraries
> that return error values.  Unless there's a really compelling reason
> to change existing values, don't.

I agree with DJ.  There's no reason for us to change errno values we
use now, since C99 doesn't require any specific numeric values, not
does it say that the values should be ordered in any particular way.

- Raw text -