Article View: alt.folklore.computers
Article #624801Re: The Peter Principle
From: Charles Richmond
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:57
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:57
40 lines
3330 bytes
3330 bytes
On 7/7/2018 6:16 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes: > >> On 7/6/2018 8:00 PM, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes: >>>>> >>>> Can an unsuccessful exec() call return??? And where would it return to??? >>> >>> The answer is in the man page: >>> >>> RETURN VALUES >>> If a function in the exec family returns to the calling process image, >>> an error has occurred; the return value is -1 and errno is set to >>> indicate the error. >>> >> >> The calling process for exec() must be the child process. ISTM the >> child process must signal the parent process and abort... if exec() >> fails. > > There is no requirement that there even be a child process. There is no > reason a process can't replace its own running image using an exec(). > Yes, of course... isn't that what any process hopes to achieve by calling exec()??? I assume a process could even re-load its *own* image using exec(). > If it's a normal fork&exec, the child process can just exit() (presumably > with an error return code) and the parent will find out about it in any > of the ways already available (including, of course, SIGCHLD). > But if tye parent process exits before killing the child... you could end up with a "zombie" process. ISTM that SVR4 Unix had system calls that would allow the child to exit (and die) without parental approval... -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<phrnhi$ea6$1@dont-email.me>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!l67-v6ni5472itl.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<pho0pp$s4$1@dont-email.me> <pho33o225k4@news4.newsguy.com> <20180706191634.7cc7ff5ecb60db674ea8c73e@eircom.net> <phogdr12dbc@news3.newsguy.com> <phoi8d$mnh$1@dont-email.me> <php3bq$hpq$1@dont-email.me> <phphlm$3jm$1@dont-email.me> <1bmuv2sklm.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Received: by 2002:a24:f643:: with SMTP id u64-v6mr6470632ith.11.1531011443604; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: alt.folklore.computers@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a02:9711:: with SMTP id x17-v6ls1290861jai.0.gmail; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a02:a590:: with SMTP id b16-v6mr7049723jam.40.1531011443064; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 17:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!l67-v6ni5472itl.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: The Peter Principle Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 19:57:38 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 40 Message-ID: <phrnhi$ea6$1@dont-email.me> References: <pho0pp$s4$1@dont-email.me> <pho33o225k4@news4.newsguy.com> <20180706191634.7cc7ff5ecb60db674ea8c73e@eircom.net> <phogdr12dbc@news3.newsguy.com> <phoi8d$mnh$1@dont-email.me> <php3bq$hpq$1@dont-email.me> <phphlm$3jm$1@dont-email.me> <1bmuv2sklm.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> Reply-To: nume...@aquaporin4.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 00:57:22 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3916c15ca5ce1e84e6edf5aeb0e94140"; logging-data="14662"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zc7oQH6G8IqoiEykUgkrine8XvYvbd9s=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:n2Z4Rj5Er4vpLRoDEPMfLUoPIbA= In-Reply-To: <1bmuv2sklm.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> Bytes: 2981 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit