Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihlpa!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1
From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: NULL etc.
Message-ID: <5205@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Jul 88 04:23:58 GMT
References:  <6966@cup.portal.com> <3458@rpp386.UUCP> <12290@mimsy.UUCP> <1315@ark.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 17

In article <1315@ark.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>In article <12290@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>\		void execl(char *, ...);

>Doesn't execl() return int anymore? With the cause of the failure in errno?

It still does (at least according to my System V manual); as a matter of
fact, the ONLY value it can return is -1.

More to the point:  why would you want to check the return value of
exec()?  The only way it can return to the calling process is if an error
occurs, so why check the return value?  It seems like a waste of code.
-- 
 _ __			NEVIN J. LIBER	..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1	(312) 510-6194
' )  )				You are in a twisty maze of little
 /  / _ , __o  ____		 email paths, all different.
/  (_