Peter Astrand <astrand at lysator.liu.se> writes: > I'd like to resolve bug 959379. Here's a naive fix. Comments? If you're going to match the normal close() processing, shouldn't that check the result against EOF and not just != 0? If for example, the file object is being used for a pipe, the result of the close might be the result code of the child process which need not be an error. I think that only EOF should signify a failure of the close(), and only in that case is errno probably appropriate (which perror will pick up). -- David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4