Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:44:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003101744.MAA22072@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
In-reply-to: <38C7B153.28825.14E9DA@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: stat and X bit question
References:  <38C7B153 DOT 28825 DOT 14E9DA AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> In is_exec.c, there is a list of extensions (listed in the code snippet 
> below) that automatically designate executable files. This list doesn't 
> include .sh, .ksh, .pl, and .sed. Was this done on purpose or should they 
> indeed be added to the list?

This list is there to avoid the costly operation of opening the file
and reading its first two bytes; files with other extensions will be
read and their executability determined by the magic signature.  So
the list only includes extensions you see most frequently on a typical
DOS/Windows system.

If somebody thinks that a few more extensions should be added, I don't
mind, but please remember the downside: the risk to identify
non-executable files as being executable, just because some Windows
application decided to usurp one of these extensions.