We've talked about this many times in the past, but partners struggle to
understand "expected 38, got 22" in these contexts, and I always have to
go and check the header files just to be sure I'm sure.
I actually think the glibc geterrorname_np() function (which would
return "ENOSYS" rather than "Function not implemented") would be more
helpful, but I'll have to go and implement that first, and then come
back.
Being forced to go through all our errno assertions did also make me
want to use a more consistent style for our ENOSYS assertions in
particular --- there's a particularly readable idiom, and I'll also come
back and move more of those checks to the most readable idiom.
I've added a few missing `errno = 0`s before tests, and removed a few
stray `errno = 0`s from tests that don't actually make assertions about
errno, since I had to look at every single reference to errno anyway.
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Iba7c56f2adc30288c3e00ade106635e515e88179
They're in glibc, though not in musl.
Also add basic doc comments to the whole of <sys/uio.h>.
Bug: http://b/203002492
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Ic607f7f349e5b7c9bf66c25b7bd68f827da530d6
LLDB uses process_vm_readv quite extensively (it's an order of
magnitude faster than PTRACE_PEEKDATA). Add a bit more tests of
the function to make sure it stays working.
Change-Id: I64e17e6d56842f118a9485e3a18f42ca5e1b7577
Test: run the new test
