[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

a suggestion: an error message could be more helpful

From: daysleeper
Subject: a suggestion: an error message could be more helpful
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:39:32 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13

Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686' -DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu' -DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/local/share/locale' -DPACKAGE='bash' -DSHELL -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./lib -g -O2 uname output: Linux arrange-desktop 3.0.0-9-generic #15-Ubuntu SMP Tue Aug 30 15:03:37 UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Machine Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu

Bash Version: 4.2
Patch Level: 0
Release Status: release

If you run a 64-bit executable on a 32-bit system via bash (which can happen by accident), it gives an "bash: ./fwupd: cannot execute binary file" error message. What seems to happen is that the execve() function in execute_cmd.c returns 8, and in this case bash only tests if the file is a script or binary. An ENOEXEC-like message of "An executable is not in a recognized format, or is for the wrong architecture" or at least the ENOEXEC string would be more helpful in determining the cause of the problem.
See also:

    see Description

But, as I say, this is only a minor problem.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]