Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Otherwise I'd strongly prefer to see a word that hints that this is >> an otherwise unneeded workaround for comiplers. Your suggested >> title instead hints that it is wrong to assume that errno will be >> set to non-zero after a syscall. I do not think that is the message >> we want to send to our readers. > > Right, the oneline I suggested was only for the original patch, with which > I disagreed. I actually do not know how your rewrite could be better, though. /* GCC thinks socket()/connect() might fail to set errno */ return errno ? errno : EIO; If a compiler thinks errno may *not* be set, can 'errno' be reliably used to decide if it can be returned as-is or a fallback value EIO should be used, without triggering the same (incorrect) working in the first place?
