Yeah, exactly. Thanks for this very interesting discussion. Bye
On Thursday, October 26, 2023, Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 10/26/23 11:55, Oğuz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gabriel Ravier
>> wrote:
>> > Isn't this a similar situation to e.g. `getuid`/`geteuid`/etc. failures
>>
>>
On 10/26/23 11:55, Oğuz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gabriel Ravier
wrote:
> Isn't this a similar situation to e.g. `getuid`/`geteuid`/etc. failures
Not similar enough to draw a conclusion. Unlike system(), those
functions are not part of the language defined by ISO C, but the
Date:Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:37:40 -0700
From:"enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID:
| i'm assuming the intention here was "you're not a POSIX system without
| a shell, so it's not possible for system(NULL) to fail to report that
| a command
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> Isn't this a similar situation to e.g. `getuid`/`geteuid`/etc. failures
Not similar enough to draw a conclusion. Unlike system(), those functions
are not part of the language defined by ISO C, but the operating system
interface defined by
On 10/25/23 21:10, enh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM Gabriel Ravier wrote:
On 10/24/23 13:59, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Oğuz
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:53 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM Gabriel Ravier wrote:
>
> On 10/24/23 13:59, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> > Oğuz
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:53 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> >>
On 10/24/23 13:59, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Oğuz
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:53 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
Oğuz
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:53 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> netbsd checks that _PATH_BSHELL is exectuable
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group <
austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group <
> austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
>
>> netbsd checks that _PATH_BSHELL is exectuable with access(2)
>>
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group <
austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
> netbsd checks that _PATH_BSHELL is exectuable with access(2)
> (but doesn't actually _execute_ anything). apple's copy of freebsd has
> a local change similar to the netbsd one. glibc
C23 ("7.24.4.8 The system function") is stricter
than POSIX: "If the argument is a null pointer, the system function
returns nonzero only if a command processor is available".
POSIX: "If command is a
null pointer, system() shall return non-zero to indicate that a
command processor is available,
11 matches
Mail list logo
