From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 23 15:41:00 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 110C537B401; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D78A43F3F; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rsi@panix.com)
Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [166.84.1.1])
	by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BC69B4871E; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from rsi@localhost)
	by panix1.panix.com (8.11.6p2/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id h5NMewU27649;
	Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200306232240.h5NMewU27649@panix1.panix.com>
Sender: rsi@panix.com
To: kientzle@acm.org
References: <3EF77E52.6070007@acm.org>
From: Rajappa Iyer <rsi@panix.com>
Date: 23 Jun 2003 15:40:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: execvP
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:41:00 -0000

Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> writes:

> In essence, execvP() is merely publishing an already-existing capability
> within the library by breaking execvp() into two very natural pieces.
> Without this, I basically will have to copy a slightly modified version
> of execvp() into several utilities, which seems a rather pointless
> exercise.

What's wrong with 

putenv("PATH=newpath");
execvp(...);

What am I missing?

rsi
-- 
<rsi@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
	Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.