Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:39:08 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures Message-ID: <p06020450bc8290f533bd@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <xzpn06bkssa.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <p06020448bc824de07ab9@[128.113.24.47]> <p0602044abc8272610919@[128.113.24.47]> <xzpn06bkssa.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:22 AM +0100 3/21/04, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes:
>> So, what BSD had a `-g' option which behaved like `-A'?
>
>SunOS, at least. In Solaris, there is still a difference between
>'/usr/ucb/ps uxw' and '/usr/ucb/ps guxw'.
Ah. I have solaris here, but never think to run /usr/ucb/ps.
Interesting. So, the writeup in SUSv3 is at least somewhat
confusing, if not wrong. When describing -A vs -a, it says:
-a
Write information for all processes associated with terminals.
Implementations may omit session leaders from this list.
-A
Write information for all processes.
And later it says:
The -A option is equivalent to the BSD -g and the SVID -e.
but that "BSD -g" does not *select* all processes, it just adds
the appropriate session-leader processes to whatever you have
selected via other options. So, that `-g' operates like `-x'.
And the implementation of `-A' on solaris and linux indicates
that they read the above the same way I did, which is to say
that `-A' causes *every* process on the system to be displayed.
And this does seem to be the same as "SVID -e".
I'm not sure what to think about that, but it's interesting to
make a note of it.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020450bc8290f533bd>