[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:52:15 -0600
From: "A. Wilcox" <awilfox@...lielinux.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Off topic question about shebang and exec()
On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 04:15:38PM +0200, Paul Schutte wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I apologize for abusing the knowledge of the people on this list, but I
>> know they will know the answer. Google does not provide a usable answer.
>>
>> I am busy writing a toy language and I would like it to be used as both a
>> compiler and "interpreter"
>>
>> I would like it to compile the source and then run the resulting binary
>> when the source file is called via the shebang and it should just do a
>> normal compile when called with "compile code.src"
>>
>> argv[0] contains the path to the compiler in both cases, which makes sense.
>>
>> Is there any way to determine which method was used to call the compiler?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Paul
>
> Not to my knowledge. I would also consider it poor design to use a trick
> like that. The normal assumption is that a shebang and just running the
> command from command line are equivalent.
>
> Normal solution here is to have a command line switch to select one
> behavior or the other. That switch can be added to the shebang or the
> command line, whatever you choose.
>
> Ciao,
> Markus
An even better solution is hinted in OP's problem description: argv[0].
Have two entry points, like a multi call binary, based on that.
You could use a softlink or hardlink named `lang` to `langc`.
Best,
-A.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
