"Schwarz, Konrad" <konrad.schw...@siemens.com> wrote: > > > Well, that is what POSIX requires, so the "modern shells" you cite > > > cannot be compliant. > > > > If you believe this, please explain it. > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_01_01, > 1. e. If the execl() function fails due to an error equivalent to the > [ENOEXEC] error defined in the System Interfaces volume of POSIX.1-2008, the > shell shall execute a command equivalent to having a shell invoked with the > pathname resulting from the search as its first operand, with any remaining > arguments passed to the new shell, except that the value of "$0" in the new > shell may be set to the command name. If the executable file is not a text > file, the shell may bypass this command execution. In this case, it shall > write an error message, and shall return an exit status of 126.
You could make replies much easier if you did limit your line length to 79 chars. A line with 587 characters is close to unreadable. But i see this: If the executable file is not a text file, the shell may bypass this command execution. which explicitly permits the named behavior. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'