Re: [Valgrind-users] Suggested changes to corecheck/tests/sigkill.c

[Matthew E. <ma...@co...>]

> Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> > However, sigaction() will return a negative error code should an error
> > occur.  Thus, setting errno = 0 prior to calling sigaction() is
unneccessary
> > since the return code (not errno) is what that application should be
> > checking to determine if an error has occurred.
>
> If you're saying "we don't need to set errno to zero", that's fine.
> All I'm pointing out is that your earlier statement, "SuSv3 says
> it's illegal to set errno to zero", is false.

Yes.  Touche.

> > Small details like this are very important for some of the non-Linux
porting
> > that is underway for valgrind.
>
> Ah, are we porting valgrind to non-Posix-compliant systems
> where it's illegal to set errno to zero?

No, we're porting to an almost-SUSv3 compliant system (FreeBSD) where
strerror/perror does not return "Success" for errno 0, since errno 0 is
technically not an error and the use of strerror/perror in that situation is
undefined.

--
Matt Emmerton