Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-02-08T00:08:59Z

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Could you explain why you don't like this one a little more clearly?
>
> Of course it'd be possible to write a complete replacement; I'd just
> replace the call to the system strerror with a switch statement and
> copy the strings out of the system runtime, or out of some other
> standard source. But I don't see why that's any better than this, and
> it's gratuituous duplication of information, so I'd like to understand
> what you dislike about it.
>
> If it's the #define strerror that you dislike, two comments:
>
> - I could put an #ifdef around the one and only call to strerror
> instead, in utils.c. I'd be perfectly happy with that.
>
> - I can't override the system strerror by defining my own copy; that
> would be prone to breakage due to the workings of
> __attribute__((dllimport)). I discussed that with Chris before posting
> this version.

Hi Mark,

Have you had a chance to think about this? I realize it's only been a
day, but I'm trying not to let these patches linger too long. I'd
really like to understand what folks dislike about this patch, so
that I can improve it. Same for the other patch; I replied to you
about select.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery