RE: Safe to maintain pointer to errno() ?

["Christen, Duane" <Duane.Christen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Barbara.

I understood the discussion in this thread, http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l/200611/msg00396.html incorrectly. I took it as recommendation not to clear/test errNo. I think, now, though it was a best practices example. Either way though, if implemented consistently either method will work.

Duane Christen
 


--

 	 	 	 	
 	 	Duane Christen
Senior Software Engineer
(319) 790-7162
Duane.Christen@xxxxxxxxxx
	 	
Visit PAETEC.COM	  	
 	 	

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barbara Morris
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:31 AM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Safe to maintain pointer to errno() ?

On 10/13/2010 2:08 PM, Christen, Duane wrote:
> One note, although the errNo procedure allows you to assign a value to 
> the errNo memory, but it is not recommended to do so, generally.

The C documentation for errno says this:

"Your program should always initialize errno to 0 (zero) before calling a function because errno is not reset by any library functions. Check for the value of errno immediately after calling the function that you want to check. You should also initialize errno to zero after an error has occurred."
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.