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. / (_