From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 28 07:21:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id EA9CA1065798; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:21:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:21:12 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Garrett Cooper Message-ID: <20110428072112.GA66450@freebsd.org> References: <20110424174442.GA45573@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: exit(3) and sysexits(3) style policy X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:21:13 -0000 On Sun Apr 24 11, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Apr 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Alexander Best wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > i was wondering about this for some time now: > > > > various documents decribe different policies regarding exit(3)'s return values. > > style(9) e.g. recommends using exit(0), while other man pages such as err(3) > > recommend using the sysexits(3) return values. > > > > i think i read some time ago on the mailinglists that it was decided that > > exit(3) should return integers rathers than sysexits(3) values. is this > > correct? shouldn't then all references such as in err(3) be removed and a > > note added to sysexits(3) that returnings its values via exit(3) does not > > according to current FreeBSD programming style? > > Bruce Evans was very anti-sysexits a while ago, and I personally agree -- in part because they're not necessarily portable and their application isn't consistent. thanks for the hint. i'll try to find bruce's mail regarding this issue in the mailinglist archives. -- a13x