So be a little bit clearer for you folks that are wondering what's going
on. ~/ti for william on this system is the mount point for an NFS share.
Both machines have user william, but it is possible that the UID for each
is different. I've run into this problem before, and it creates all sorts
of strange behavior. So, I'll write a simple hello world executable
locally, in tmpfs . . .
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:17 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> umask has no effect on the current situation. None, period, zip.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Mike <bellyac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/25/2016 09:03 PM, William Hermans wrote:
>>
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ gcc test.c -o test
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ test
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ ./test
>> 32.540001
>>
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ sudo ln -s /home/william/ti/test /usr/bin/test
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ test
>> william@beaglebone:~/ti$ cd ..
>> william@beaglebone:~$ test
>> william@beaglebone:~$ sudo test
>> 32.540001
>>
>> So, it's a permissions issue. . .
>>
>> Exactly, yet you haven't show any of the file permissions in your above
>> foray.
>>
>> Again I'll say it umask is largely what controls how permissions are set
>> when files are created. This is basic *nix 101...
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, William Hermans <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *Nothing at all to do with gcc, reread what I already posted...*
>>>
>>>
>>> Your system, and mine behave nothing alike. For instance if I attempt to
>>> run an executable without using dot slash prefixed. The executable will
>>> simple fail silently.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Mike < <bellyac...@gmail.com>
>>> bellyac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/25/2016 08:11 PM, William Hermans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Im guessing that perhaps gcc's -o option now days enables the
>>>> executable bit on the output file ? I haven't looked into that however.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing at all to do with gcc, reread what I already posted...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:08 PM, William Hermans < <yyrk...@gmail.com>
>>>> yyrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, Mike is absolutely correct. dot's meaning in this context is
>>>>> current directory, and slash is just a path modifier / separator. Putting
>>>>> the file in ones $PATH would solve the "problem" of having to use dot
>>>>> slash
>>>>> I've know this forever, I do not know why I was thinking that chmod +x
>>>>> would solve that "issue", because it wont.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do recall at some point perhaps not too long ago that changing file
>>>>> permissions to executable was required. But now days this does not seem to
>>>>> be the case . . . I've always in the last several years use ./executable
>>>>> until I put the executable into my local path . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mike < <bellyac...@gmail.com>
>>>>> bellyac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/25/2016 02:03 PM, William Hermans wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No chmod needed *IF* you precede the command with a dot slash "./".
>>>>>> So when you run a regular Linux command do you have to type this dot
>>>>>> slash
>>>>>> ? No because chmod +x is run on the executable at some point . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So be nice to fellow group users who actually know what they're
>>>>>> talking about, and have been on this list a lot longer than you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we need to learn what ./ does... It has absolutely nothing to
>>>>>> do with a files permissions or whether it's executable or not. It's use
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> regarding the lack of the current directory "." in one's PATH variable.
>>>>>> Umask is (largely) what controls what permissions a file is created with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ls -al
>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>> drwxr-xr-x 2 mike mike 4096 Mar 25 17:07 .
>>>>>> drwxr-xr-x 37 mike mike 4096 Mar 25 16:46 ..
>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 78 Mar 25 16:47 hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ umask
>>>>>> 0022
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ gcc -Wall
>>>>>> -o hello hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ls -l
>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 mike mike 6696 Mar 25 17:08 hello
>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 78 Mar 25 16:47 hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ hello
>>>>>> bash: hello: command not found
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ./hello
>>>>>> Hello, world!
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ umask 0137
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ gcc -Wall
>>>>>> -o hello hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ls -l
>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>> -rw-r----- 1 mike mike 6696 Mar 25 17:09 hello
>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 78 Mar 25 16:47 hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ hello
>>>>>> bash: hello: command not found
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ./hello
>>>>>> bash: ./hello: Permission denied
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ls -l
>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>> -rw-r----- 1 mike mike 6696 Mar 25 17:09 hello
>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 78 Mar 25 16:47 hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ chmod 0750
>>>>>> hello
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ls -l
>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>> -rwxr-x--- 1 mike mike 6696 Mar 25 17:09 hello
>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 78 Mar 25 16:47 hello.c
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ ./hello
>>>>>> Hello, world!
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ umask 022
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$ umask
>>>>>> 0022
>>>>>> <mike@pride-n-joy:%7E/test.d$>mike@pride-n-joy:~/test.d$
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Dieter Wirz < <didi.w...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> didi.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Graham Haddock <
>>>>>>> <gra...@flexradio.com>gra...@flexradio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Yes.
>>>>>>> > sudo chmod 755 myprogram
>>>>>>> > or
>>>>>>> > sudo chmod 755 myprogram.o
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Graham, please do not tell fairy tails on this list!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ echo '#include <stdio.h>' > hello.c
>>>>>>> $ echo 'int main (void) { printf ("Hello, world!\n"); return 0;
>>>>>>> }' >> hello.c
>>>>>>> $ cat hello.c
>>>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>>> int main (void) { printf ("Hello, world!\n"); return 0; }
>>>>>>> $ gcc -Wall -o hello hello.c
>>>>>>> $ ./hello
>>>>>>> Hello, world!
>>>>>>> $ ls -l
>>>>>>> total 12
>>>>>>> -rwxrwxr-x 1 dw dw 7332 Mar 25 16:32 hello
>>>>>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 dw dw 80 Mar 25 16:31 hello.c
>>>>>>> $
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No chmod needed, no myprogram.o there, why the sudo????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> --
>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BeagleBoard" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
--
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
