[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: alarm(3) bug?
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, enh wrote:
> i was trying to replace bionic's hacked alarm.c with the current
> NetBSD alarm.c, but noticed that you return -1 on error
It has been this way ever since it was introduced before 4.2BSD in
> , unlike glibc and bionic, and apparently contrary to POSIX:
> "The alarm() function is always successful, and no return value is
> reserved to indicate an error."
Main Index |
Thread Index |