On Thu, 7 May 2015, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:55:37PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2015, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:59:52PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
if that were the case, argc would not have been introduced, which is
why I doubt the use of this argument ?
C code that regards nil as the last element of the argv array is just wrong.
The C standard says that argv[argc] shall be a null pointer.
So if argc is 15, there should be no problem to have a Nil at position 5 ?
The standard also says that argv[0] to argv[argc-1] shall contain
pointers to strings. NULL is not a pointer to a string, so that would
be a problem.
Indeed.
So, in any case, we'll need to adapt TProcess.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
