Article View: net.lang.c
Article #9381Re: putw return value
From: VLD/VMB
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1986 21:10
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1986 21:10
9 lines
962 bytes
962 bytes
There have been various versions of putw() on UNIX systems. Some returned the word written or EOF on failure, which was ambiguous. Somebody then decided that putw() should return 0 on success, EOF on failure. However, the implementation didn't follow the new spec. SVR3 has it that putw() should return ferror() or EOF on failure. I think this is the same as 0 or EOF. My feeling is that you should ignore the return value of putw() since there's no telling what it will be next week, and use ferror() to detect an error.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4066@brl-smoke.ARPA>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!gwyn@BRL.ARPAShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!gwyn@BRL.ARPA From: gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: putw return value Message-ID: <4066@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 17:10:40 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.4066 Posted: Tue Sep 23 17:10:40 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Sep-86 07:10:25 EDT Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA Lines: 9