There is no precise definition of "acceptable", effectively. It's tied into the requirements specific processors or platforms have on where code and data can be placed in memory, which is outside C's and POSIX's scope. Most systems elect to localize all the (gory) details of creating an acceptable file in a separate linker application, using a metadata format like OMF or ELF as source, not put it in the C or other compilers. In a message dated 11/23/2016 8:06:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mark_gal...@pacbell.net writes:
>The Bourne Shell does what is in the standard text, but the standard text does not describe an algorithm but leaves the exact algorithm open. Is that a problem in the standard, that in the definition of Executable File: "A regular file acceptable as a new process image file by the equivalent of the exec family (...)" "acceptable" is not precisely defined? Should I report this?
