On 13/08/2012 13:51, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Imho, EACCESS is indeed a bit misleading because it suggests permission >> problems. Better would be to have an EFAIL as a generic error. Actually i >> was missing an EFAIL several times when my programs needed to return >> an error code that did not match well with what i found in errno.h . > > You may think it is misleading but > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/exec.html > states that EACCESS is the correct value.
Well, for a start that's an POSIX V1. Here's a link to V2 exec: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/exec.html I don't see in the description for EACCES [Note - one S, not two] that it should be returned when there is a missing runtime component. Also, see this general page on errors. The errors documented for a particular function aren't intended to be exhaustive. An implementation can return others as long as it is consistent. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_03 In any case Cygwin's primary aim is to provide a Linux-like environment, not pure POSIX. Linux exec/execve manpages list many more error codes. -- Cliff -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
