On 9/7/18 7:19 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 09/07/18 06:37, Barath Aron wrote:
Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
then use the remaining arguments to run/fork/spawn the target program.
Do y
On 09/07/18 06:37, Barath Aron wrote:
>> Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
>> that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
>> then use the remaining arguments to run/fork/spawn the target program.
>
> Do you know systems that have this pr
On 9/7/18 4:54 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change the w.d. back?
Yes, one could do this.
Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
t
Tavian Barnes writes:
> One thing you'll probably run into is that posix_spawn() has no interface
> for running the spawned process in a new working directory. That makes
> implementing -execdir/-okdir somewhat awkward.
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change t
> Hello again,
>
> I intended to introduce the use of the posix_spawn to the findutils. The
> Threos OS ( https://threos.io ), as you might know, does not support fork,
> but it has posix_spawn. My plan is the following: I write the code that
> implement the process spawning with the posix_spawn, a
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #46815 (project findutils):
I'm a decades-long professional programmer, and even I just found the present
behavior of rounding up very surprising, which is why I'm here posting. If I
can get confused, an ordinary user has no chance, and may well miss the fact
that the da
