Hi Stewart, thank you for your reply On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Felipe Tanus wrote:
[...] I can't see why someone would mess with argv[0]. Considering that there is a motive to do that, your suggestion would fit perfectly. Can you please give me an example? [...] The reasons come down to making the process look different to ps or similar tools, whether to remove path information, indicate process state, hide the real process name for (weak) security reasons, or make a process reveal its real purpose. In the latter case, I mean changing an interpreter's argv[0] to something that relates to the script it is interpreting. [...]
That sounds reasonable. In this case, Instead of creating a helper as Turpish suggested, I propose to create another method to create a process assuming argv[0] = process name. This way, if using it when needed, may provide a more readable code by decreasing the redundancy in the code. Also, thanks for the info. I didn't research the matter yet, but maybe the argv[0] can help with the problem to identify and send signals to other processes in both platforms. []'s -- Felipe de Oliveira Tanus E-mail: fotanus@gmail.com Blog: http://www.itlife.com.br Site: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~fotanus/ ----- "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." - Gandalf