Mark Galeck <mark_gal...@pacbell.net> wrote, on 24 Nov 2016: > > >There is no precise definition of "acceptable" > > Yes currently there isn't , but it would be easy to make such a > definition, simply, for various failure errno numbers (which are > enumerated in the standard), say "acceptable", "not acceptable", or > perhaps "unspecified". >
I really don't see the need for the standard to spell this out in such detail. When it says "a regular file acceptable as a new process image file", it should be obvious that it means the file contents can be used by exec*() to create a new process image. The only error numbers listed for exec*() that relate to file contents are EINVAL and ENOEXEC. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
