From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15e9725ee4ac8322 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Markus Kuhn Subject: Re: [Q] Operating System Command Interface Date: 1998/05/06 Message-ID: <35502E1D.38DAA3BD@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 350780163 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6ims5j$1vo@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> <354F2EF4.41C6@hso.link.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Andi Kleen wrote: > system() is part of the c library and not a system call on Unix. [...] > Of course that doesn't mean that it is portable. What is done with > the string is implementation specified - just returning an error > is legal. Only if you restrict yourself to looking exclusively at ISO C when designing a portable application (bad idea). The entire POSIX.2 standard is dedicated to defining the portable semantics of system(). Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: