Re: [PATCH 1/3] fprintftime: depend on stdio, not ignore-value

[Paul Eggert]

On 01/04/2013 12:58 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> AFAIK, that comment is still valid

I can put the comment back but I'd like to word it
so that I understand it -- currently I don't.

Could you explain a bit more about the problem?
First, I just now reread the C99 standard as well
as POSIX-1.2008, and I don't see how either
standard permits fputc to fail without
setting the error indicator.

Second, if the C standard actually does let fputc fail without
setting the error indicator, then why did we go through
the effort of removing __wur from glibc's fwrite
prototype?  If that's really what the standard allows,
then portable code should look at fwrite's return
in all cases, in order to detect write errors reliably.