Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 02:46:08 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Environment handling broken in /bin/sh with changes to t,set,put}env() Message-ID: <20070713224608.GB21695@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070713171942.Q26096@thor.farley.org> References: <20070707133102.C14065@thor.farley.org> <20070707191835.GA4368@nagual.pp.ru> <20070707205410.B14065@thor.farley.org> <20070708020940.GA80166@nagual.pp.ru> <20070708171727.GA90490@nagual.pp.ru> <20070713162742.GA16260@nagual.pp.ru> <20070713142545.K26096@thor.farley.org> <20070713202433.GA19856@nagual.pp.ru> <20070713203915.GA20270@nagual.pp.ru> <20070713171942.Q26096@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:27:58PM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote: > Does that mean that environ is untouched or that the environment is > unchanged? They seem to use both words (environ and environment) in the > documentation making me think they are not necessarily the same thing. > Currently, non-getenv() calls rebuilds the environ array if having never > been changed before, but the "environment" is "unchanged" if the > variable does not exist. Should that not meet that requirement? IMHO by the environment they means environ contents, not pointers, because they say: "The setenv() function shall update the list of pointers to which environ points." -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070713224608.GB21695>