Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:58:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Problem in executable file mechanism In-Reply-To: <20030416163529.GQ11137@cygbert.vinschen.de> Message-ID: Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:56:32AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Try "strace sh -c ls". > > Igor > > Well... let's get serious. What do you expect? Think UNIX. The > executable is 'ls'. The directory is 'ls'. This is only possible > on Windows because the executables have this .exe suffix. On UNIX > this won't be a problem since there wouldn't be two files with the > same name in a directory. > > Corinna Yes. But since such a mechanism *was* introduced in Cygwin, shouldn't the executable take precedence, at least for an exec() call? I can't think of a situation when anyone would want to exec() a directory... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty. -- Leto II -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/