FYI: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

Igor could be right about (status &= 0x), just in case is not masked by _exit() as for msvcrt exit() % cat err.c #include int main(int argc, char **argv) { if (argc == 1) return (0); exit(strtol(argv[1], NULL, 16)); } - b31 = b16 = 0 - % err-cl 0x7ffeff5a ; printf "%

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> -wrong-nil(!)-exit-status- > % nerr-cl.exe; echo $? > 0 > > $? cannot distinguish exit(0) from exit(-2) ... this is > logical anarchy! :) Ah, but those aren't just two different values passed to exit, they are :) in fact two entirely different versions of the exit function: gcc links

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

:) "The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] or any :) other value" :) but what you shouldn't do is expect the exit status in the shell to be :) anything other than the least-significant byte of the value you passed: :) "though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, sta

Re: negative error status: gcc vs. cl

> Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl > compiled .exe :) The answer is "don't do that". Use positive values in the range from :) 0 to 255. See :) http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html I wouldn't do that. The problem is other did

negative error status: gcc vs. cl

Feel like bash tcsh on Cygwin mess up with negative exit status from a cl compiled .exe % uname -a CYGWIN_NT-5.0 pc 1.3.22(0.78/3/2) 2003-03-18 09:20 i686 unknown unknown Cygwin % echo $SHELL /bin/bash % cat nerr.c int main() { exit (-2); } % gcc -o nerr-gcc nerr.c % cl -o nerr-cl nerr.c M