Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!dftsrv!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!tub!uwbln!ckl From: ckl@uwbln.UUCP (Christoph Kuenkel) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Why isn't argv[argc]==(char *)0 ? Message-ID: <1979@uwbull.uwbln.UUCP> Date: 17 Nov 89 19:01:54 GMT References: <547.nlhp3@oracle.nl> <11606@smoke.BRL.MIL> Distribution: comp Organization: UniWare GmbH, Berlin Lines: 19 In article <11606@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > What makes you think that argv[argc]!=(char*)0 ? > argv[argc]==(char*)0 is existing practice and is also required by > [...] > execv() definitely is UNIX- (or POSIX-) specific, but the main() > and execv() interfaces are compatible in this regard since both > originated within the same software development culture. well, main() and execv() originate in the first versions of UNIX and at least in Version 6, argv[argc] was (char *) -1. The manual page stated that argv could not be used directly in a call to execv(). in version 7, they purged the ``not'' from the manual page.... i'm not sure but maybe the v6 style behaviour survived in some unix derivates? christoph -- # include Christoph Kuenkel/UniWare GmbH Kantstr. 152, 1000 Berlin 12, West Germany ck@tub.BITNET ckl@uwbln {unido,tmpmbx,tub}!uwbln!ckl