Thread: how to force a function to never return...like exec() does it

how does exec() do it? on successful call of exec() family of functions, they never return...

how to i emulate that.

assume the standard example,

Code:

execl("/bin/ls","ls",NULL);

now this would never return.

i m trying to emulate exec()'s never to return feature...

Code:

#include<unistd.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>

void myexec(const char* path,const char* argv)
{
    chdir(path);
    system(argv);
    sleep(2);    //make process orphan
    exit(100);   //exit to init
}


int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{
    if(argc!=3)
    {
        printf("USAGE:%s <path> <command>\n",argv[0]);
        exit(1);
    }   
    if( fork() == 0)
    {
        myexec(argv[1],argv[2]);
    } 
    else
    { 
          sleep(1);   //suspend parent
          exit(0);      //be a bad parent ;) 
     }
    printf("this should never be executed");    
}

i m not trying anything fancy...only to emulate the "no return" feature once a command is executed.

so when i run this program
(trial 1)

Code:

[c_d@localhost cfiles]$ gcc 1.c
[c_d@localhost cfiles]$ ./a.out /bin/ls ls
1.c	  a.out		 fcopy.c~  frevread.c~	msg~	 prgm1.c~  prgm2.c~  prgm3.c~  prgm4.c~  prgm5.c~  prgm7.c     sth~
1.c~	  cfiles.tar.7z  file1~    key.c	prgm1	 prgm2	   prgm3     prgm4     prgm5	 prgm6.c   prgm7.c~
alpha.c~  f1~		 fread.c~  key.c~	prgm1.c  prgm2.c   prgm3.c   prgm4.c   prgm5.c	 prgm6.c~  printip.c~
[c_d@localhost cfiles]$

(trial 2)

Code:

[c_d@localhost cfiles]$ ./a.out /home/c_d/workspace/unix/shellscripts/ ./leapyear_prgm07.sh
2009 is not a leap year
[c_d@localhost cfiles]$

i get what i want...the line "this should never be executed" never gets printed


but i m not happy...i m unnecessarily wasting away 2 secs for emulating this...
and i personally dont feel it as an elegant way to emulate exec()....

please help me grasp the internals of exec() call... and explain to me how it works and tell me if there is an alternative to make a function-call never return...

also please explain to me, why in execl*() a set of arguments is preferred to be passed as in

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls", "-l", (char *)0);

when it could have been implemented as

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls -l", (char *)0);

instead

...and i have same complaint with execv*() style exec()...

thank you.

Originally Posted by creeping death

but i m not happy...i m unnecessarily wasting away 2 secs for emulating this...

So don't sleep. I'm not sure what the problem is.

and i personally dont feel it as an elegant way to emulate exec()....

Why are you emulating it in the first place?

please help me grasp the internals of exec() call... and explain to me how it works and tell me if there is an alternative to make a function-call never return...

The fact that exec() never returns is as inevitable as death... If you replace the currently executing program with something else, obviously the old program no longer exists. Something can't return if it doesn't exist.

ok...

So don't sleep. I'm not sure what the problem is.

now that you mention it...i feel quite stupid.

but why in execl*() a set of arguments is preferred to be passed as in

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls", "-l", (char *)0);

when it could have been implemented as

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls -l", (char *)0);

instead

Originally Posted by creeping death

ok...

now that you mention it...i feel quite stupid.

but why in execl*() a set of arguments is preferred to be passed as in

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls", "-l", (char *)0);

when it could have been implemented as

Code:

execl ("/bin/ls", "ls -l", (char *)0);

instead

There are a few reasons. One, exec() is a system call, which means the kernel does it. The single string will have to be broken back into individual arguments to pass in the argv[] array of the executed process anyway. It would be pointless to force the kernel to do that.

Two, if you are dynamically building a command line, you would have to use sprintf() to pack the arguments into a single string -- again, why bother when you already have them separately.

Three, what happens if you have a program that has a space in its name? There would be no way to distinguish "space as argument separator" from "space just because there happened to be a space in the name."

thanks but...where can i find the defination of the exec() family of funtions...

unistd.h has the following...and they seem to be more like declarations than definations...

Code:

/* Replace the current process, executing PATH with arguments ARGV and
   environment ENVP.  ARGV and ENVP are terminated by NULL pointers.  */
extern int execve (__const char *__path, char *__const __argv[],
		   char *__const __envp[]) __THROW __nonnull ((1));

#ifdef __USE_GNU
/* Execute the file FD refers to, overlaying the running program image.
   ARGV and ENVP are passed to the new program, as for `execve'.  */
extern int fexecve (int __fd, char *__const __argv[], char *__const __envp[])
     __THROW;
#endif


/* Execute PATH with arguments ARGV and environment from `environ'.  */
extern int execv (__const char *__path, char *__const __argv[])
     __THROW __nonnull ((1));

/* Execute PATH with all arguments after PATH until a NULL pointer,
   and the argument after that for environment.  */
extern int execle (__const char *__path, __const char *__arg, ...)
     __THROW __nonnull ((1));

/* Execute PATH with all arguments after PATH until
   a NULL pointer and environment from `environ'.  */
extern int execl (__const char *__path, __const char *__arg, ...)
     __THROW __nonnull ((1));

/* Execute FILE, searching in the `PATH' environment variable if it contains
   no slashes, with arguments ARGV and environment from `environ'.  */
extern int execvp (__const char *__file, char *__const __argv[])
     __THROW __nonnull ((1));

/* Execute FILE, searching in the `PATH' environment variable if
   it contains no slashes, with all arguments after FILE until a
   NULL pointer and environment from `environ'.  */
extern int execlp (__const char *__file, __const char *__arg, ...)
     __THROW __nonnull ((1));

thanks...

Originally Posted by creeping death

thanks but...where can i find the defination of the exec() family of funtions...

unistd.h has the following...and they seem to be more like declarations than definations...

exec*() are System Calls. That means they are built into the Kernel.
If you want to see how they work, download the Linux source code and take a look.
Although there's no way to do the same thing as exec*() without going through the Kernel, since the OS won't let you do it.

thanks