"Dmitry V. Levin" <l...@altlinux.org> writes: > This "= 0" has been printed all these years, so it's quite logical to > suppose that the user expects to see "= 0" and might be quite surprised > to see something else like "= 11" instead.
Well, it *used* to print 11, I suppose 0 is better than 11 :-) >> Where in any of the traced >> programs is that "= 0" available for inspection? > > It's in the register. On x86_64 it's %rax, on s390 it's %r2, etc. It's not about whether they expect to see "= 0" vs "= 11" - it's about whether they expect to see *anything at all*. I mean, at the C program level, does the user have access to that? Should we be implying that execve() *returned* to the user's program? By using a syntax that implies return of control to the caller, we may be confusing the user into thinking that the exec failed, but returned a zero to their program. We could add some other way of indicating success that doesn't imply control was returned to the caller, like printing " (success)" instead of " = 0" there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
