Fix socket calls in glibc by using new errno return macros.

Fix socket calls in glibc by using new errno return macros.

Also update tests to match.

BUG=None
TEST=trybots
R=binji@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=271241

[binji, 2014-05-16 20:19:08]

lgtm, though make sure these actually pass the trybots. It looks like they're
flaking on bot_update. :-/

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
File native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc:661:
EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
I think I like it better without the duplication of EXPECT_CALL:

EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
    .WillOnce(Return(0))
    .WillOnce(DoAll(SetErrno(kDummyErrno), Return(-1)));

It seems we're inconsistent in this file, though.

[Sam Clegg, 2014-05-16 20:29:53]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/li...
File native_client_sdk/src/libraries/nacl_io/kernel_wrap_glibc.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/li...
native_client_sdk/src/libraries/nacl_io/kernel_wrap_glibc.cc:434:
RTN_ERRNO_IF(result < 0);
Can you just move this up above the 'if' and then remove the whole if else block
above?

No need to set *sd at all on failure I think.

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
File native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc:661:
EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
On 2014/05/16 20:19:09, binji wrote:
> I think I like it better without the duplication of EXPECT_CALL:
> 

I think that was the conclusion I came to last time I looked that this too.

> EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
>     .WillOnce(Return(0))
>     .WillOnce(DoAll(SetErrno(kDummyErrno), Return(-1)));
> 
> It seems we're inconsistent in this file, though.

[bradn, 2014-05-16 20:52:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/li...
File native_client_sdk/src/libraries/nacl_io/kernel_wrap_glibc.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/li...
native_client_sdk/src/libraries/nacl_io/kernel_wrap_glibc.cc:434:
RTN_ERRNO_IF(result < 0);
On 2014/05/16 20:29:53, Sam Clegg wrote:
> Can you just move this up above the 'if' and then remove the whole if else
block
> above?
> 
> No need to set *sd at all on failure I think.

Merged to match the others.

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
File native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc:661:
EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
On 2014/05/16 20:19:09, binji wrote:
> I think I like it better without the duplication of EXPECT_CALL:
> 
> EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
>     .WillOnce(Return(0))
>     .WillOnce(DoAll(SetErrno(kDummyErrno), Return(-1)));
> 
> It seems we're inconsistent in this file, though.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/286303002/diff/40001/native_client_sdk/src/te...
native_client_sdk/src/tests/nacl_io_test/kernel_wrap_test.cc:661:
EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
On 2014/05/16 20:29:53, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2014/05/16 20:19:09, binji wrote:
> > I think I like it better without the duplication of EXPECT_CALL:
> > 
> 
> I think that was the conclusion I came to last time I looked that this too.
> 
> > EXPECT_CALL(mock, bind(kDummyInt, &addr, kDummyInt2))
> >     .WillOnce(Return(0))
> >     .WillOnce(DoAll(SetErrno(kDummyErrno), Return(-1)));
> > 
> > It seems we're inconsistent in this file, though.
> 

Done.

[bradn, 2014-05-17 03:59:51]

The CQ bit was checked by bradnelson@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-17 04:02:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bradnelson@google.com/286303002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-17 17:20:01]

Change committed as 271241