lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) (01/24/88)
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.uucp> says > In article <551@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) > writes: > >Everything that has been said about VMS and exit(0) so far is false. > ... > >I found that *none* of them resulted in any message from DCL; > >*all* of them produced a quiet exit. > The time frame of discussion is important. DEC has recently revised > its C compiler for VMS. Some things formerly missing are now present, > and the old exit(0) problem ("No text for message 0000" etc.) has been > fixed. At the risk of flogging a deceased equine, I tested Rahul's exit(0) contention. The results are shown below: $ type foo.c #include <stdio.h> main() { printf( "all done...\n" ); exit( 0 ); } $ run foo all done... %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000 .... as you can see, VMS complains, sorta. Doesn't *anybody* on this newsgroup actually _check_things_out_ before they send? Arrrrrgh! spl ---------------------------------------- Internet: LAMONTS@SDS.SDSC.EDU Bitnet: LAMONTS@SDSC Span: SDSC::LAMONTS (27.1) USPS: Steve Lamont San Diego Supercomputer Center P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, CA 92138 AT&T: 619.534.5126
ok@quintus.UUCP (01/24/88)
In article <11439@brl-adm.ARPA>, lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) writes: > ... as you can see, VMS complains, sorta. > > Doesn't *anybody* on this newsgroup actually _check_things_out_ before > they send? Arrrrrgh! Yes we do. exit(0) *is* silent in VMS 4.5 CC 2.3. I would still like to know which systems exit(0) and exit(1) don't work in, and as this misunderstanding shows, it is important that people quote version numbers in their reports.
mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (01/24/88)
>> Doesn't *anybody* on this newsgroup actually _check_things_out_ before >> they send? Arrrrrgh! > Yes we do. exit(0) *is* silent in VMS 4.5 CC 2.3. > I would still like to know which systems exit(0) and exit(1) don't > work in, and as this misunderstanding shows, it is important that > people quote version numbers in their reports. Well, I can't check this anymore since that particular system is long gone, but VMS 3.5, C 1.2 most certainly had the exit(0) bug. I just tried main() { exit(0); } on VMS 4.4 and microVMS 4.5, C 2.3-024, and both have the exit(0) bug. There may also be variations in the version of the runtime library that affect the results. Mike Khaw -- internet: mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.arpa usenet: {uunet|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|uw-beaver}!mkhaw%teknowledge-vaxc.arpa USnail: Teknowledge Inc, 1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119, Palo Alto, CA 94303
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/24/88)
In article <11439@brl-adm.ARPA> lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) writes: >Doesn't *anybody* on this newsgroup actually _check_things_out_ before >they send? Arrrrrgh! Richard O'Keefe did, and I was following up on his article, so I said ...and the old exit(0) problem ("No text for message 0000" etc.) has been fixed. I could have said "has apparently been fixed" but why should I doubt a fellow Usneetter's word? -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) (01/29/88)
"M. Warner Losh" <hydrovax@nmtsun.nmt.EDU> quotes me as follows: > In article <11439@brl-adm.ARPA>, lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) writes: > < > <At the risk of flogging a deceased equine, I tested Rahul's exit(0) contention. > <The results are shown below: > < > <$ type foo.c > < exit( 0 ); > < %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000 > < > [my miscellaneous ranting deleted to preserve bandwidth and to protect the > guilty (me...;-) ] > > you must have version 2.2 of the VMS compiler (I have the same one), > because I posted the same results a few days ago. People tell me that > C version 2.3 corrects this problem (it really breaks a lot of code, > but that is beside the point). > > Does anybody WHO HAS 2.3 KNOW FOR SURE? Sorry... I forgot to say that I _did_ compile under VMS C 2.3... in fact I just double checked it. Interestingly enough, if you leave off the exit(0); and just drop out the bottom, you don't get a message. I don't know if that was the case under 2.2 or not, since I don't have access to the old version of the compiler. Maybe that was what your informant was referring to. spl ---------------------------------------- Internet: LAMONTS@SDS.SDSC.EDU Bitnet: LAMONTS@SDSC Span: SDSC::LAMONTS (27.1) USPS: Steve Lamont San Diego Supercomputer Center P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, CA 92138 AT&T: 619.534.5126
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (01/30/88)
There *is* a vmsexit(). It is called SYS$EXIT, and is described in
the System Services Manual (page SYS-152 in our copy). A VMS error
code contains
a severity code (bottom 3 bits, 0 = warning, 1 = success,)
a subsystem code (RMS? SYS? DCL? FTN? and so on)
the error code
should-this-be-printed?
and something else which I don't remember. Given that SYS$EXIT()
exists, there is no reason why exit() couldn't be this way:
void exit(n)
int n;
{
n &= 255;
C-library-shut-down;
SYS$EXIT(n == 0 ? 1 :
{severity = 2, subsystem = C, error code = n, don't print});
}
This would manage to be consistent with both UNIX and VMS.
So I can't believe that EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE were invented
for DEC's sake.dave@terminus.UUCP (VAX Headroom @ The End of the Galaxy) (02/03/88)
In article <11537@brl-adm.ARPA>, lamonts@Sds.Sdsc.EDU (Steve Lamont) writes: > > < exit( 0 ); > > < %NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000 > >... > and just drop out the bottom, you don't get a message. I don't know if that > was the case under 2.2 or not, since I don't have access to the old version Yes, that is the case under 2.0-2.3. VMS likes exit() or exit(1) as an "ok" indication. I propose the use of exit(EXIT_OK) where EXIT_OK is defined correctly for your machine.