Path Isn't Real on Linux

Re:Path Isn't Real on Linux by quotemstr on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @08:06PM (#43839590)

Well, execve(2) and execvp(3) are both "system" functions. C (which is already black magic for some people) invokes by calling into functions exported from libc. If you're not super dorky^Wfamiliar with low-level systems stuff, you might guess that the two functions are implemented in the same place and in the same way. That the latter is just a libc wrapper around the former that does a PATH search is arcane detail you don't have to care about 99% of the time.

It's hard to appreciate how the world looks before you learn a fact. You can't unsee things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path Isn't Real on Linux by Aloisius on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @10:24PM (#43840548)

But the man page section tells you which one is is a a kernel syscall (2) and which is a C library function (3)...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path Isn't Real on Linux by Joker_vD on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @11:14PM (#43840895)

Which is the universally known convention everyone is born with inherent knowledge of. Also, people read man-pages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path Isn't Real on Linux by Aloisius on Wednesday April 30, 2025 @12:05AM (#43841157)

What person diving into their shell's source code on Linux doesn't read manpages? Or even man's manpage at least once?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path Isn't Real on Linux by Joker_vD on Wednesday April 30, 2025 @02:21AM (#43841835)

Daniel Huang, the one that wrote TFA? People are different, I don't know what else to tell you. But generally, people don't read man pages or docs.

[ Parent | on HN ]