Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting

To: "Simon Burge" <simonb%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
From: "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko%gmail.com@localhost>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:01:03 +0300

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Simon Burge <simonb%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> Does section B.2.3 of
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/xrat/xsh_chap02.html give
> us freedom here to report those extra errno values?
If a command value, f.e. -2, not valid, it doesn't, because the
ERRORS: section contains "shall" is mandatory. And in that section the
invalid command causes EINVAL.
Am I wrong?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Follow-Ups:
- Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
  - From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund

References:
- rfc: fcntl() error reporting
  - From: Andy Shevchenko
- Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
  - From: Simon Burge

Prev by Date: Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
Next by Date: Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
Previous by Thread: Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
Next by Thread: Re: rfc: fcntl() error reporting
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index