Re: [PATCH] trace2: refactor to avoid gcc warning under -O3

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Otherwise I'd strongly prefer to see a word that hints that this is
an otherwise unneeded workaround for comiplers.  Your suggested
title instead hints that it is wrong to assume that errno will be
set to non-zero after a syscall.  I do not think that is the message
we want to send to our readers.

Right, the oneline I suggested was only for the original patch, with which
I disagreed.

I actually do not know how your rewrite could be better, though.

		/* GCC thinks socket()/connect() might fail to set errno */
		return errno ? errno : EIO;

If a compiler thinks errno may *not* be set, can 'errno' be reliably
used to decide if it can be returned as-is or a fallback value EIO
should be used, without triggering the same (incorrect) working in
the first place?