A modest proposal for better errno values...

[Gary Jennejohn]

Bob Bishop writes:
> Hi,
> 
> At 09:57 13/5/03, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> >[stuff]
> >#define EDOOFUS         88              /* Programming error */
> >[more stuff]
> 
> Before the noise becomes unbearable, I have a question:
> 
> Why isn't EINVAL appropriate to the case in question?
> 

If you look at the 4 places where it's in the tree it's pretty clear that
returning EDOOFUS is meant to rub the programmer's nose in a coding error
(recursive malloc() calls, etc).

At least the error string ("Programming error") is reasonable.

I agree that the name isnt' too happily chosen and should be changed to
something more neutral before it shows up in more places in the tree.

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj at jennejohn.org gj at freebsd.org gj at denx.de