Why does the behavior of mkdir differs on differen

I was trying to create folders named 1 2 3 4, using the C++ program below. I can successfully achieve that in RHEL. However it created a folder named {1..4} in ubuntu 13.10.

Why does this happen? Thank you for helping me!

    #include <cstdlib>

    int main()
    {
        std::system("mkdir {1..4}");
    }

It's a part of CPP unit test in our product. Yes, it's ugly. But I am afraid very few thing can be done in this situation.

You are right. In RHEL, sh -c 'echo {1..4}' 1 2 3 4

In Ubuntu sh -c 'echo {1..4}' {1..4}

So I use the program below instead. It works! #include

int main()
{
    std::system("bash -c 'mkdir {1..4}'");
}

seems system use sh by default....Thank you for your answer!

A bit of terminology: Linux has directories in its file systems, not "folders" (folders may appear visually on the desktop, but that is a desktop detail).

You don't need to use system(3) (which is running sh not bash!). And POSIX sh don't know the {1..4} notation, hence the {1..4} string is passed verbatim to /bin/mkdir command (see mkdir(1) ...).

Run

 sh -c 'echo {1..4}'

to test that sh don't understand the {1..4} notation.

(so it is a bug in your old RHEL, where perhaps /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash while on Debian and Ubuntu it is a symlink to the more Posix compliant and faster /bin/dash)

Just use the mkdir(2) syscall and code

#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>

int main() {
   for (int i=1; i<=4; i++) {
      char buf[8];
      snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", i);
      if (mkdir(buf, 0755))
        { perror("mkdir"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
   }
}

I hope you don't want to create a single directory named 1 2 3 4. It is possible and easy, but it really is poor taste. For your mental safety, use only letters, digits and underscores _ in directory names.

I am using snprintf(3) to convert an int to a character buffer. With C++11 you could use std::to_string and c_str ...

Read Advanced Linux Programming...

Using the mkdir(2) syscall instead of going thru a command invoked by system(3) has several important advantages:

it is much faster, you don't need to fork(2) a /bin/sh -c shell like system(3) should do.
it uses much less resources, since no additional process is fork-ed, so your program will still run when you have reached your limits (see setrlimit(2) ...)
it is more reliable. Should mkdir(2) fail you could (and should) handle the failure nicely. See errno(3) and strerror(3) ....