On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:49:48AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Johannes Sixt wrote: > > Am 30.12.19 um 19:06 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > > >> when > >> errno is meaningful for a function for a given return value, the usual > >> convention is > >> > >> (1) it *always* sets errno for errors, not conditionally > > > > You seem to understand that errno isn't set somewhere where it should be > > set. > > On the contrary: this caller is using errno as an error *indicator* > instead of a way of *distinguishing* between errors (or to put it > another way, this caller is treating `errno == 0` as a meaningful > condition). This means the calling code is buggy. That works completely fine if the code in question also sets errno to 0 in case there is some other leftover value from a previous library call. Thanks Michal
