Hi!
On Wed Jun 18, 2003 at 02:49:26PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:30:15 +0200, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
This code snippet will lookup the PATH environment and search for the
ps executable. It will execute it and will pass ps as argv[0] and
x as argv[1]. It is
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:30:15 +0200, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
This code snippet will lookup the PATH environment and search for the
ps executable. It will execute it and will pass ps as argv[0] and
x as argv[1]. It is equivalent to:
$ ps x
nitpick
Don't you mean
$ exec ps x
/nitpick
--
I was told that similar to execl, execlp et al there is also an exec
call. Yet when I run
man exec
I only get execl, execlp, execle, execv and execvp. No `pure' exec, one
without any additional letters. Can I safely tell that person that he is
definitely confusing the C system calls with
Hi!
On Tue Jun 17, 2003 at 10:29:25PM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote:
I was told that similar to execl, execlp et al there is also an exec
call. Yet when I run
man exec
This is exec(3) which documents the exec family calls. AFAIK there is no
POSIX exec() function. Please install the
Thus spake Shaul Karl:
I was told that similar to execl, execlp et al there is also an exec
call. Yet when I run
man exec
I only get execl, execlp, execle, execv and execvp. No `pure' exec, one
without any additional letters. Can I safely tell that person that he is
definitely
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:29:25PM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote:
I was told that similar to execl, execlp et al there is also an exec
call. Yet when I run
man exec
I only get execl, execlp, execle, execv and execvp. No `pure' exec, one
without any additional letters. Can I safely tell
6 matches
Mail list logo
