Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2006
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:50:58AM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > > Gisle Aas wrote: > > > Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna@efn.org> writes: > > > > > > > --- perl/pod/perlvar.pod.orig 2006-01-17 08:18:45.000000000 -0800 > > > > +++ perl/pod/perlvar.pod 2006-01-30 01:05:06.754971200 -0800 > > > > @@ -1196,7 +1196,7 @@ > > > > =item $^X > > > > > > > > The name used to execute the current copy of Perl, from C's > > > > -C<argv[0]>. > > > > +C<argv[0]> or (where supported) /proc/self/exe. > > > > > > Seems better to just delete the ", from C's argv[0]." part. > > > /proc/self/exe is too Linux specific. > > > > > > Alternative suggestion is: > > > > > > "If the OS does not provide perl the path to the executable then C's > > > C<argv[0]> is used as fallback." > > > > Actually I think that /proc/self/exe can be a useful info. > > So I applied Yitzchak's patch as #26999 (thanks). > > (For the record I've just been hit by a bug on /proc/self/exe on chroots > > under unionfs on Linux, which was possible to work around by configuring perl > > with -Ud_procselfexe...) > > My only reservation is it's not called that on FreeBSD or Solaris. Oops, I missed that. I see configure tests for /proc/curproc/file; is that what Solaris uses, too?Thread Previous