From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:31:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:31:06 -0500 Received: from hellcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil ([204.222.179.34]:61923 "EHLO hellcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:31:05 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jesse Pollard To: Andreas Schwab , Jakob Oestergaard Subject: Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux. Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:36:31 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: Linux-kernel References: <20030115164731.GB8621@unthought.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200301151536.31653.pollard@admin.navo.hpc.mil> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 15 January 2003 03:26 pm, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jakob Oestergaard writes: > |> Can anyone point out a problem in the above? I'd be happy to see it shot > |> down, mainly because it's ugly - and I hate programs that mess with > |> argv[0]. > > argv[0] is not required to point to the actual file name of the > executable, and in fact, most of the time it won't. And don't count on it for portability - Some systems take a copy of arg0 for the process tables, and changing it will NOT alter the process name. It is only the default action for shell programs. All others can make arg0 anything they want - as login effectively does .. execl ("pathtoshell", "-", 0) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil Any opinions expressed are solely my own.