Re: RFA: Support Windows extended error numbers in safe_strerror

Christopher Faylor
2006-02-06T17:54:05Z

On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:54:55PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> This is an improved version of a patch Mark Mitchell submitted last
>> year. If you give strerror() anything above 42 (sys_nerr) on Windows,
>> it gives you back "Unknown error" - particularly unfortunate since
>> WSAECONNREFUSED is way above there, so connecting to a closed socket
>> will give you a generic error message. This patch lets us try an
>> OS-specific interface to fetch an error string.
>>
>> [Actually you need my next patch too to get the connection refused message;
>> right now you'll get a timeout.]
>>
>> Any comments on this patch?
>
>There were plenty :-) Is this better?
>
>We had finally eliminated the XM files in favor of autoconf checks.
>This patch re-adds an xm-*.h header file, but I think it's still
>the best of our options. We can restrict our use of these headers
>to things where autoconf is a bad fit - like right here.
>
>Rather than creating a .mh file and setting XM_FILE there, I added
>this and an equivalent to TDEPFILES to configure.host. This is in
>line with discussion I vaguely remember from last year that the
>makefile fragments were not a preferable solution for this sort
>of thing. I do agree that it looks more elegant this way.

I don't remember this discussion but I think this looks fine.

I don't have any problem supporting this so there is no need (yet) to
change the maintainer rules.

So, if I have the authority to say go ahead and check this in then
"Go ahead and check this in".

cgf