Re: New g_ascii_strtod/g_ascii_dtostr() patch

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Alex Larsson wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Alex Larsson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Tim Janik wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Alex Larsson wrote:
> > > > He proposed that we should set errno to 0 in g_ascii_strtod(). What do 
> > > > people think about this? Personally i don't like doing magic that makes 
> > > > it behave in a way the standard call does.
> > > 
> > > for g_ascii_strtod(), we're pretty free to reset errno to 0, since
> > > we're not 1:1 mimicking a libc function there.
> > 
> > We are mimicking an "old" pre-locales libc function though.
>  
> (responding to myself)
> 
> Also, reseting errno here may cause problem for users that actually want 
> the errors in a function to "stick". If we randomly clear it people may 
> miss an old error.

i'm pretty sure that:

errno=42;
some_libc_function_that_doesnt_fail();
assert(errno==42);

is _non_ portable. esp. since there're a bunch of libc
functions that call others and may workaround errnos in
such subcalls, simply by setting errno=0 at the end.

> 
> / Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 

---
ciaoTJ