Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:27:06PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:17:25AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > "Michael Meissner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > These system calls are part of the Opengroup standard for UNIX (which > > > Linux > > > adheres to), and

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Michael Meissner
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 03:18:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:44:02PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >The more easy specification will be > > > > > > > >int execel(const char *path, const char *arg0, c

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Michael Meissner
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:17:25AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > "Michael Meissner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > These system calls are part of the Opengroup standard for UNIX (which Linux > > adheres to), and they have been around for many years. At this point, I > > don't > > recall if t

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:44:02PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >The more easy specification will be > > > > > >int execel(const char *path, const char *arg0, char *const envp[], > > >... /*, (char *)0*/); > > >

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Andreas Schwab
"Michael Meissner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > These system calls are part of the Opengroup standard for UNIX (which Linux > adheres to), and they have been around for many years. At this point, I don't > recall if they were part of the UNIX V7 that is the ancestor of all modern > Linux, UNIX,

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Michael Meissner
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >The more easy specification will be > > > >int execel(const char *path, const char *arg0, char *const envp[], > >... /*, (char *)0*/); > > > >with same functionality but reordered the parameters of the function > >fol

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Paolo Bonzini
The more easy specification will be int execel(const char *path, const char *arg0, char *const envp[], ... /*, (char *)0*/); with same functionality but reordered the parameters of the function following the general pattern of putting '...' in the last position. Don't blame gcc

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread J.C. Pizarro
On 2007/11/29, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29 November 2007 00:12, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > > > The more weird thing was "..." in middle of the C's stack from > > int execle(const char *path, const char *arg, ..., char * const envp[]); > > extracted from "man execle". > > http://www.op

RE: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-29 Thread Dave Korn
On 29 November 2007 00:12, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > The more weird thing was "..." in middle of the C's stack from > int execle(const char *path, const char *arg, ..., char * const envp[]); > extracted from "man execle". http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/functions/exec.html int execle

Re: Bug in builtins.def, the execve. don't use execle, use execel.

2007-11-28 Thread J.C. Pizarro
On 2007/11/29, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, i wrote: > builtins.def:635: DEF_EXT_LIB_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_EXECVE, > "execve", BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING, > ATTR_NOTHROW_LIST) > > Is it BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING > a weird bug? > >