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
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
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
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*/);
> > >
"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,
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
"J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
>
> The correct
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
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
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
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?
>
>
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?
The correct const symbol is BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_PTR_CONST_STRING
Pl
12 matches
Mail list logo
