Louis-Alexandre Stuber <stuberl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But ENOENT is not a normal case at all. Should we not treat it the same
> way as other fopen() errors ? (either going on with default case or
> returning an error)
>
> Would :
>
>> if (!fp) {
>> die("could not read file '%s': %s",
>> filename, strerror(errno));
>> } else {
>
> be ok ?
That would be much better than what we had in the patch, which did not
look like an error at all:
+ FILE *fp = fopen(filename, "r");
+
+ if (!fp) {
+ name_bad = "bad";
+ name_good = "good";
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html