Where should I post such things?

[bdimych]

> cat x
#!/blabla
>
>
> ./x
-bash: ./x: /blabla: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
>
>
> perl -e 'exec("x") || die($!)'
No such file or directory at -e line 1.
>
>

bash's messsage much more informative than perl's, it is not a bug, it is something like small feature request?

[svenXY]

Hi,
IMHO, the message is very clear. bash spits out more information because you have it (blabla) in the shebang line and it therefore complains about a bad interpreter.

The rest of the message is the same and comes from the OS.

Cheers, Sven

[svenXY]

Hi,
small correction:
exec does not find the file although it should:

~/tmp$ ./x
bash: ./x: /blabla: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
~/tmp$ perl -e 'exec("x") || die($!)'
No such file or directory at -e line 1.
~/tmp$ perl -e 'exec("~/tmp/x") || die($!)'
sh: /home/svenXY/tmp/x: /blabla: bad interpreter: No such file or dire
+ctory

but

$ perl -e 'exec("pwd") || die($!)'
/home/svenXY/tmp

So now you know why the messages are different, but I'm confused as to why exec does not find file x...
Regards,
svenXY

[Corion]

exec respects $ENV{PATH} (or rather, exec uses the OS, and the OS respects $ENV{PATH}), and "." seems to be not in the path (and the OS seems to be one which does not have "." as a mandatory default in the list of directories searched for the executable).

[parv]

In both cases -- according to ktrace(1) on FreeBSD 6-STABLE with Perl 5.8.8 in zsh 4 -- perl is complaining, through execve(2), about the missing interpreter not the file itself being executed.

Corion's reply reminded me that I just had added '.' to the path; thanks. It turns out the message, or rather error from execve(2), is the same whether the problem is not finding the file being executed, or if found, with missing interpreter listed in the file. Anyawy, what OP said.

[shmem]

Where should I post such things?

Just here (with a more appropriate title) or elsewhere.