[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:20:29 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Todo for release?
* Daniel Cegie?ka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> [2012-08-15 10:55:06 +0200]:
> >> - Support for __progname (Daniel)
> >
> > Daniel, any more thoughts on this? Are there lots of programs that
> > want it that can't easily be patched to simply use argv[0] themselves?
>
> This is not something that is absolutely necessary. __progname quite
> often is used on *BSD and less on Linux (eg. Owl's msulogin,
> popa3d)... but __progname is always easy to fix.
>
i think the fact that *bsd uses it
is not enough justification
openbsd uses it because it's part of
their style guide for whatever reason
"The __progname string may be used instead
of hard-coding the program name."
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=style&sektion=9
but we don't support many things from
there (like sys/queue.h)
i don't think many linux tools uses it
as it's not part of the lsb and glibc
has its own silly
program_invocation_name and
program_invocation_short_name
(which are aliases to __progname and
__progname_full)
the main justification i see is that
we already support bsd err and warn
apis which are required to print
the __progname as well
(currently they don't and actually
a simple warn("hi"); segfaults here
with musl but i havent investigated
it)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
