PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Sat Mar 20 16:39:13 PST 2004
At 12:22 AM +0100 3/21/04, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> writes:
>> So, what BSD had a `-g' option which behaved like `-A'?
>
>SunOS, at least. In Solaris, there is still a difference between
>'/usr/ucb/ps uxw' and '/usr/ucb/ps guxw'.
Ah. I have solaris here, but never think to run /usr/ucb/ps.
Interesting. So, the writeup in SUSv3 is at least somewhat
confusing, if not wrong. When describing -A vs -a, it says:
-a
Write information for all processes associated with terminals.
Implementations may omit session leaders from this list.
-A
Write information for all processes.
And later it says:
The -A option is equivalent to the BSD -g and the SVID -e.
but that "BSD -g" does not *select* all processes, it just adds
the appropriate session-leader processes to whatever you have
selected via other options. So, that `-g' operates like `-x'.
And the implementation of `-A' on solaris and linux indicates
that they read the above the same way I did, which is to say
that `-A' causes *every* process on the system to be displayed.
And this does seem to be the same as "SVID -e".
I'm not sure what to think about that, but it's interesting to
make a note of it.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at rpi.edu
More information about the freebsd-standards
mailing list