On 03/03/2013 02:53 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>> personally, i find it a bit ironic that a lot of GNU apps (including
>> coreutils)
>> simply abort() themselves when argv[0]==NULL considering the project's hard
>> line position about not relying on argv[0] for behavior.
>
> This issue was mentioned here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-11/msg00215.html
>
> The problem with avoiding the aborts is that NULL is only
> one of many invalid values for argv[0]
>
Come again?
You can't seriously say that checking for a null pointer or an invalid
string (for whatever definition of "valid" you happen to have) is hard.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
