From:	Alain Magloire <alainm AT rcsm DOT ece DOT mcgill DOT ca>
Message-Id:	<199910241901.PAA27802@mccoy2.ECE.McGill.CA>
Subject:	Re: Bug in fsetpos()?
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991024093430.29385N-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Oct 24, 99 09:34:41 am
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Bonjour M. Eli Zaretskii

> 
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Alain Magloire wrote:
> 
> > > Linux says:
> > > 
> > > RETURN VALUES
> > >        The rewind function returns no value.  Upon successful
> > >        completion, fgetpos, fseek, fsetpos return 0, and ftell returns
> > >        the current offset.  Otherwise, -1 is returned and the global
> > >        variable errno is set to indicate the error.
> > 
> > I would consider this to be a "bug" in the Linux man pages.
> 
> Sorry, I must be missing something here.  What bug do you see in this
> description?

"Bug" is a big word, rater nit-picking.

I'm just advocating for use of "!= 0" instead of "-1" in the docs.
As I say the stds only require a return value of "0" for sucess and
different then "0" otherwise.  Since most implementation I've seen do
fsetpos() { return fseek(); }
This is a moot point.  It's just that by reading the Linux man, you would
be tempted to test for error by doing
(fsetpos() == -1)   instead of (fsetpos() != 0)

If you are doing lot of porting, little things like that
can make you loose lot of hair.
But then again, I've never seen such case yet.

-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

- Raw text -