On 5 Jun, 14:45, mark.berg...@thales-is.com wrote:
> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
> difference in the return value of glob().
> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
> code:
> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.
>
> However, if the first parameter is changed to "/tmp/a/*", i.e.
> searching for files within the directory, the return value on Digital
> Unix is still GLOB_NOMATCH, but on RHEL it is GLOB_ABORTED (2)
>
> Which is correct?
> (I have seen the man page, and some Google matches mentioning earlier
> Linux bugs, but am still confused!)

This is probably better addressed in comp.unix.programmer, as
comp.lang.c tends not to concern itself with behaviour outside the C
standards.

However, http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...ions/glob.html
(the relevant part of the relevant standard) was easy to find and
suggests to me that the RHEL behaviour is correct.

mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
>
> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
> difference in the return value of glob().
> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
> code:
> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.
>
> However, if the first parameter is changed to "/tmp/a/*", i.e.
> searching for files within the directory, the return value on Digital
> Unix is still GLOB_NOMATCH, but on RHEL it is GLOB_ABORTED (2)
>
> Which is correct?
> (I have seen the man page, and some Google matches mentioning earlier
> Linux bugs, but am still confused!)

Who knows. You didn't post the code for glob().

--




cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-06-05, CBFalconer wrote:
> mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
>>
>> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
>> difference in the return value of glob().
>> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
>> code:
>> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
>> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.
>>
>> However, if the first parameter is changed to "/tmp/a/*", i.e.
>> searching for files within the directory, the return value on Digital
>> Unix is still GLOB_NOMATCH, but on RHEL it is GLOB_ABORTED (2)
>>
>> Which is correct?
>> (I have seen the man page, and some Google matches mentioning earlier
>> Linux bugs, but am still confused!)
>
> Who knows. You didn't post the code for glob().

man glob:


GLOB(3) Linux Programmer's Manual GLOB(3)


NAME
glob, globfree - find pathnames matching a pattern, free memory
from glob()


--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author |
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

"Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
> On 2007-06-05, CBFalconer wrote:
>> mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
>>> difference in the return value of glob().
>>> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
>>> code:
>>> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
>>> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.
>>>
>>> However, if the first parameter is changed to "/tmp/a/*", i.e.
>>> searching for files within the directory, the return value on Digital
>>> Unix is still GLOB_NOMATCH, but on RHEL it is GLOB_ABORTED (2)
>>>
>>> Which is correct?
>>> (I have seen the man page, and some Google matches mentioning earlier
>>> Linux bugs, but am still confused!)
>>
>> Who knows. You didn't post the code for glob().
>
> man glob:
>
> GLOB(3) Linux Programmer's Manual GLOB(3)
>
> NAME
> glob, globfree - find pathnames matching a pattern, free memory
> from glob()

That is not the code for glob(). I see no mention of Linux in the
C standard. Nor of glob(). Nor of pathnames.

--




cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
>
> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
> difference in the return value of glob().
> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
> code:
> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.

In my earlier reply I didn't notice the cross-post, and neglected
to set follow-ups. Done here.

--




cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2007-06-06, CBFalconer wrote:
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
>> On 2007-06-05, CBFalconer wrote:
>>> mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
....
>>> Who knows. You didn't post the code for glob().
>>
>> man glob:
>>
>> GLOB(3) Linux Programmer's Manual GLOB(3)
>>
>> NAME
>> glob, globfree - find pathnames matching a pattern, free memory
>> from glob()
>
> That is not the code for glob(). I see no mention of Linux in the
> C standard. Nor of glob(). Nor of pathnames.

This is comp.os.linux.misc, not comp.lang.c, so that is
irrelevant.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author |
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

On 2007-06-06, CBFalconer wrote:
> mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
>>
>> I am porting from Digital Unix to Linux (RHEL 4), and am seeing a
>> difference in the return value of glob().
>> Given a non-existant directory "/tmp/a", and the following line of
>> code:
>> result = glob("/tmp/a", GLOB_ERR, NULL, &globInfo);
>> - result is set to GLOB_NOMATCH on both platforms.
>
> In my earlier reply I didn't notice the cross-post, and neglected
> to set follow-ups. Done here.

Same here. Sorry.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author |
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

"Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:
> On 2007-06-06, CBFalconer wrote:
[...]
>> That is not the code for glob(). I see no mention of Linux in the
>> C standard. Nor of glob(). Nor of pathnames.
>
> This is comp.os.linux.misc, not comp.lang.c, so that is
> irrelevant.

It's both, as well as comp.unix.programmer. The message was
(inappropriately) cross-posted.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

"Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
> On 2007-06-06, CBFalconer wrote:
>> "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
>>> On 2007-06-05, CBFalconer wrote:
>>>> mark.bergman@thales-is.com wrote:
> ...
>>>> Who knows. You didn't post the code for glob().
>>>
>>> man glob:
>>>
>>> GLOB(3) Linux Programmer's Manual
>>>
>>> NAME
>>> glob, globfree - find pathnames matching a pattern, free
>>> memory from glob()
>>
>> That is not the code for glob(). I see no mention of Linux in the
>> C standard. Nor of glob(). Nor of pathnames.
>
> This is comp.os.linux.misc, not comp.lang.c, so that is irrelevant.

No, if you look at the cross-posts you will see it is also c.l.c.
Follow-ups have been set.

--




cbfalconer at maineline dot net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com