Re: The machine stack and the C language
- From: roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson)
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:56:38 +0000 (UTC)
In article <87fxwhdop8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx> wrote:
But the only reason to
execute "/bin/true --version" with the expectation of having it do
nothing is deliberate conformance testing. There's no real-world
reason to give it an argument at all.
Real life example:
Portable(-ish) Makefiles with a step that would normally be
ar -t (topological sort on the archive contents) but that step
is unneeded or unimplemented on some architectures. The usual
solution is to parameterize the program name as a variable in
the makefile, and for those architectures that do not need or
support the step, use /bin/true or ':' (colon) as the program name,
taking advantage of the fact that arguments will be ignored but
the step will be considered to succeed.
--
'Roberson' is my family name; my given name is 'Walter'.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The machine stack and the C language
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: The machine stack and the C language
- References:
- The machine stack and the C language
- From: jacob navia
- Re: The machine stack and the C language
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: The machine stack and the C language
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: The machine stack and the C language
- From: Keith Thompson
- The machine stack and the C language
- Prev by Date: Re: How Do You Pronounce char?
- Next by Date: Re: How Do You Pronounce char?
- Previous by thread: Re: The machine stack and the C language
- Next by thread: Re: The machine stack and the C language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
