On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> > Well, EFAULT can't be returned by pipe(2) currently. So it seems
> > wrong to document it as possible return value in manpage.
>
> you miss the point.
>
> we want to reserve the right for pipe(2) to possibly return EFAULT in
> the future.

I'm confused. If we change pipe(2) to possibly return EFAULT in the
future, why not just change the man page then?

Skipping error checking would be one reason. But since the routine is
documented to possibly generate other errors, developers won't skip error
checking (EMFILE and ENFILE are still possable).

??

Take care,

Bill