iostat

[Daniel Franke]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:52:39PM -0700, Richard E Maine wrote:
> I would personally agree with Daniel here that the numbers "should"
> be distinguishable.... for an appropriate sense of "should." In
> particular, that's for the sense of "I think it should be that way
> for user convenience" as opposed to the sense of being a requirement
> of the standard.

I really have to train on the subtleties of the English language.
Of course I meant "should" in terms of user's convenience.

Although the standard does not require distinguishable error codes, it
is usually save to assume that an error number holds more information
than "error yes/no".


2006/8/23, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>:
> Unfortunately, gfortran runs on more than just a few operating
> systems.  While open(2) on many Unix-like system probably returns
> ENOENT, EACCESS, etc., we would need to determine the corresponding
> errors on all supported OS's.

2006/8/23, Erik Edelmann <erik.edelmann@iki.fi>:
> What about assigning the value of errno to iostat,

Given Tobias' example for IOMSG, I assume that gfortran has all the
necessary information at its disposal, but just passes 'IOSTAT=1' to
the user. Implementing Erik's suggestion would allow those who care to
determine the appropriate message on their own. It would not break
existing code that checks for EQ/NEQ 0 either.

As a developer who is going to be bugged by users along lines as "It
says 'XXX failed' - what's wrong?" I would really appreciate _any_
starting point, including an arbitrary and system dependent error
number.


Regards
	Daniel