cvs commit: src/usr.bin/newgrp

[Devon H. O'Dell]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
:liamfoy     2004/12/08 14:00:32 PST
:
:DragonFly src repository
:
:  Modified files:
:    usr.bin/newgrp       newgrp.c 
:  Log:
:  - Check the return value of setenv(). We should check this value since
:    setenv() uses both malloc and realloc.
:  
:  Revision  Changes    Path
:  1.2       +9 -3      src/usr.bin/newgrp/newgrp.c

    That's fine, though the typical way of checking the return 
    value is to check for it < 0 rather then exactly equal to
    -1.  Both are correct, but < 0 is used the most often in the code
    base and considered easier to read.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Is it? I always found == -1 to be rather straightforward, and 
considering (according to SUSv3) that setenv _must_ return only 0 or -1, 
I see no point to check for any other value. If setenv were to return 
anything else on failure, and you would need to check what the error 
was, I could understand this. But errno is set when setenv errors, and 
returns -1, so I'm stumped as to why checking for < 0 is considered to 
be easier to read, since it seems more like an obfuscation to what the 
case actually can be in reality.

Kind regards,

Devon H. O'Dell