From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-63271-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11743 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 20:45:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 11734 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 20:45:41 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:45:35 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3NKimWI030178; 	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:44:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n3NKimSD023708; 	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:44:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:45:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200904232044.n3NKimSD023708@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: brobecker@adacore.com
CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20090423203710.GH7552@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker 	on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:37:10 -0700)
Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] Handle EOF on terminals opened with ENONBLOCK...
References: <20090423191446.GB7512@adacore.com> <200904231934.n3NJY7j7006691@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090423203710.GH7552@adacore.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00665.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:37:10 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> > I suppose the errno == EAGAIN is supposed to check whether fgetc()
> > failed.  However, your code has an ferror() in between, which could
> > clobber errno.  So perhaps it is better to reverse those checks.
> 
> I did it in that order because I wanted to test the error condition
> on the FILE before actually checking errno. The C99 draft that I have
> does not say anything about errno, but the man page on my GNU/Linux
> machine does say explicitly that errno doesn't get set during
> a call to ferror.
> 
> I can try reversing them, though... Let me know if you think I should.

Hmm, looking at the OpenBSD and Solaris implementations of ferror(3),
they both are just checking a flag. so what you currently have should
be safe.