"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/'
