From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Lawrence D'Oliveiro  schrieb:   
   > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:50:05 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   >   
   >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro  schrieb:   
   >>   
   >>> but a clue appears in the 2018 spec, section 11.4, “STOP and ERROR STOP   
   >>> statements”:   
   >>>   
   >>>     When an image is terminated by a STOP or ERROR STOP statement, its   
   >>>     stop code, if any, is made available in a processor-dependent   
   >>>     manner. If the stop-code is an integer, it is recommended that the   
   >>>     value be used as the process exit status, if the processor supports   
   >>>     that concept.   
   >>>   
   >>> So an image “terminates”, and returns a process “exit status”; this   
   >>> must mean that an “image” is equivalent to a “process”.   
   >>   
   >> No.   
   >   
   > But a process can only have one exit status, and an image can only have   
   > one stop code. If there is not a 1:1 correspondence between them, then   
   > what?   
      
   The answer is in the standard: "processor-dependent", so an   
   implementation is free to do whatever its writers feel like doing.   
   It could write to standard error, it could return an exit code,   
   or it could send a carrier pigeon (which would require the right   
   operational hardware) or an e-mail.   
      
   You're making the mistake of trying to fit a single concept to   
   something that is deliberately left as processor-dependent in the   
   standard.  It doesn't fit (as I explained in the part you snipped).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)