Talk:Native shebang: Difference between revisions
→Problems
(Example problem) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 59:
== Problems ==
The intro paragraph talks of a "third language" without identifying a second language (presumably the first language is the unix shell). Why? Is the "third language" a reference to the idea that C binaries are typically being "interpreted" by <code>ld.so</code>?
The C example doesn't work for me (unless a segmentation fault from script_gcc.sh can be described as "working" or a bad interpreter error from echo.c can be described as "working"). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 2014-03-24T01:45:49
Line 65:
:If you are sure it doesn't work then flag it as incorrect and put any extra info to help in recreating your problem here in the talk page. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 07:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is what I get on OpenBSD (and OSX). Note that I obtained script_gcc.sh from the unix shell implementation as there was no such file defined in the C implementation.
<pre>$ chmod +x /usr/local/bin/script_gcc.c /usr/local/bin/script_gcc.sh echo.c; ./echo.c Hello, world
./echo.c: line 6: syntax error near unexpected token `('
./echo.c: line 6: `int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp){'</pre>
So I think (a) the C implementation should include the script_gcc.sh file, since that is a part of what it needs to run at all, and (b) the implementation should be documented as being non-portable, and only working on Linux. The task description should probably also be changed to more thoroughly document this volume of code that an implementation might need. Depending on how that task description issue handled, it may actually be that this task can only be solved on linux. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 23:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
| |||