[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Finding the dump
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Finding the dump |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 09:22:31 +0200 |
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:23:58 -0500
>
> If the program wants to relaunch itself, or find other files that correspond
> to its executable file, it should check @code{argv[0]}.
I would suggest to use another word instead of "should". Using
argv[0] has its drawbacks, e.g., if the string there neither has a
slash nor is a file found along PATH -- this could happen when a
program is invoked via a symlink or some other method, or because the
calling program puts there something unrelated to where the executable
lives. There's a reliable way to find where the executable file of a
running process lives -- on GNU/Linux, this is via /proc/self. But
saying "should" here could be interpreted to mean that the GNU Coding
Standards frown on any other method of doing this job.
Perhaps "could" or "might". Or "it is customary to ...".
- Re: Finding the dump,
Eli Zaretskii <=