Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Benjamin Franksen <[email protected]> · Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:43:16 +0200

On Friday 21 September 2007 17:03, Eric Norum wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> > Eric Norum wrote:
> >>> which leads to pseudo errors; errno should be checked only if the
> >>> return
> >>> value is abnormal. It should be just
> >>>
> >>>     if(stat!=RPC_SUCCESS) {
> >>>         /* error handling */
> >>>     }
> >>
> >> Both the places where this code appears are preceded by
> >> assignments of 0 to errno.   The fact that this was done makes me
> >> think that the code was placed there for a reason.  There appear
> >> to be several substandard versions of RPC libraries out there.
> >
> > That may be true (I have no knowledge), but on vxWorks at least
> > what Ben says is right — if you haven't been handed an error return
> > status you should assume that any value placed in errno has been
> > handled internally by the routine you called.  I believe that older
> > versions of auto-save/ restore suffered from the same
> > misapprehension and generated bogus error messages as a result, but
> > I think Tim Mooney has cleaned them all up now.
>
> The code in question was added by Marty Kraimer -- there's nothing in
> the CVS log to suggest why, though.
> I'm leaning towards doing as Andrew and Benjamin suggest, but I still
> have this niggling feeling that the extra check must have been put
> there for a reason.

What about the following procedure: the extra check gets disabled (#if 
0...#endif) and some comment is added. In case it turns out it is still 
needed for some broken RPC implementation it gets re-added conditionally, 
i.e. only for the target platform where the kludge is necessary.

Cheers
Ben

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System