Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Why isn't argv[argc]==(char *)0 ?
Message-ID: <11679@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 23 Nov 89 16:40:21 GMT
References: <547.nlhp3@oracle.nl> <1989Nov16.012439.6405@virtech.uucp> <2651@auspex.auspex.com> <1391@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <1391@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
>So it's probably the first version that had it.  From the Sixth Edition
>man page for exec(II):

C as delivered with Sixth Edition UNIX is unusable anyway by today's
standards.  Long, long ago I upgraded the C system on the Sixth Edition
UNIX installation that I was responsible for, and many others did the
same.  One of the things that we fixed was the use everywhere of -1 as
an "invalid pointer" indicator; that is untenable in modern C.

(Yes, I know about sbrk() and SIG_ERR.)