Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:02:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: jraynard@dial.pipex.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Flaws in system() implementation? Message-ID: <199604251802.LAA25761@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199604250044.KAA29532@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Apr 25, 96 10:44:43 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
>
>
> >> > 1. Use of a wait union when an int would do.
> >> This is the correct POSIX thing to do..
> >> check the man page for wait.
>
> >According to the 2.1.0-RELEASE man page, wait and friends use an int*
> >for the status variable.
>
> That is the correct POSIX thing.
I stand corrected
LIBRARY
Standard C Library (libc.a)
SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
pid_t wait(
int *status_location);
pid_t waitpid(
pid_t process_id,
int *status_location,
int options);
>
> >> > 3. Returns 0 if fork() fails, when -1 seems more appropriate.
> >> POSIX says:
>
> >Thanks for posting this, I don't have access to any POSIX specs
> >(except the odd snippet in books). What's the best way of getting hold
> >of them?
>
> Joerg said that the draft POSIX spec is on the (old) WC Internet Info
> cdrom. I haven't got it.
I have actually only got the x/open XPG4 spec which says that it is POSIX2
compliant
>
> It's less ambiguous than julianese :-). It completely specifies the
gee thanks :)
I copied it word for word from XPG4
> return value after a fork failure, at least in my copy, which says
> "shall return -1" instead of "returns -1". "shall" is standardese that
> means that the implementation is non-conforming if it does anything
> else. "should" would allow the implementation to screw up.
>
> Bruce
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604251802.LAA25761>