Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:53:53 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Correct way to call execve? Message-ID: <3F1C0C91.6050203@acm.org> References: <3F1B0610.90803@acm.org> <20030720225041.GA26277@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 02:13:52PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>If I declare argv as "const char *",
>>then the call to execve() warns about
>>"incompatible pointer type" for the
>>second argument.
>
> Almost, but the other order is important here, this passes gcc -Wall:
>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <paths.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char *const argv[], char *const envp[]) {
> char *const execargv[] = { _PATH_BSHELL, NULL };
>
> execve(_PATH_BSHELL,execargv,envp);
>
> return 0;
> }
Actually, this example passes -Wall if you declare
"execargv" as simply "char *[]". However, I'm looking
for something that passes gcc -Wwrite-strings, which this
example does not.
I honestly don't believe it is possible to call
execve() in a const-correct fashion with -Wwrite-strings
unless you copy over all of the arguments into
non-const storage. <sigh> I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
Tim Kientzle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F1C0C91.6050203>