theo at markettos.org.uk
Tue Jun 14 05:57:52 PDT 2005
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:26:52PM +0100, Alex Waugh wrote:
> I have a feeling that there are a few programs that change their
> behaviour based on argv, but I can't think of any examples at present.
A rather extreme case is busybox, which does the job of 101 standard Unix
tools and works out which one you asked for via argv. I'm guessing this
is generally done with hard/soft links but we could do it with aliases which
wouldn't break argv (unless people do things like */foo )
[does exec*() handle RISC OS aliases?]
> I think canonicalising it if it contains any . : < > $ characters,
> otherwise leaving it as it is, should be good enough for most cases.
The aliases case above makes that a little more dangerous: what does
exec("cat") do? (which could exist as a built in *command, an alias and an
executable all at the same time). What about exec(".")?
> I'd be tempted to leave making it configurable until someone finds a
> case where it is needed.
I think probably making it configurable and the default being keep the
status quo is safest...
More information about the gcc