On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 06:47:29PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The patch makes sense to me, modulo that the way the variable
> "saved_errno" introduced by this patch is used and the way a
> variable with that name is typically used in our codebase are at
> odds. I.e. we typically call a variable "saved_errno" when it is
> used in this pattern:
>
> if (a_syscall_whose_error_condition_we_care_about()) {
> int saved_errno = errno;
> perform_some_cleanup_operation_that_might_clobber_errno();
> return error_errno(..., saved_errno);
> /*
> * or
> * errno = saved_errno;
> * return -1;
> * and let the caller handle 'errno'
> */
> }
>
> But since I do not think of a better name for this new variable that
> is not exactly used like so, let's queue it as-is.
I'd probably have just called it "err", but I think it is fine either
way. :)
The patch also looks good to me. I used to compile with -O3 occasionally
to fix warnings, but given the date on this commit, it seems I have not
done so in quite a while. (It reproduces on gcc 10 for me, which is not
surprising).
-Peff
