Indeed I can:

C:\test\test\test>test.pl
About to try fail 1
0 : test.exe
1 : localhost
2 : root
3 : pwd

Can't spawn "cmd": No error at C:\test\test\test\test.pl line 7.
About to try fail 2
0 : test.exe
1 : localhost
2 : root
3 : pwd

Can't spawn "test.exe localhost root pwd": No error at C:\test\test\te
+st\test.pl line 11.
[download]

Same result whether the return value is -1 or -100_000.

The problem is with Perl's handling of Windows return codes. Trying to force fit a 32-bit signed int into an unsigned char doesn't go :)

As for what constitutes a "valid windows return code"--a signed integer covers it. Long ago, there was a convention that positive return codes were 'informational', negative 'failures', with zero being unadorned success.

The problem is with Perl's handling of Windows return codes. Trying to force fit a 32-bit signed int into an unsigned char doesn't go :)

That's quite wrong.

For starters, Windows error codes are unsigned.
ExitProcess
GetExitCodeProcess

The problem occurs when coercing the 32-bit unsigned value into 31-bits (a 32-bit signed value where negative has a special meaning).

DWORD status;
...
GetExitCodeProcess(ProcessInformation.hProcess, &status);
ret = (int)status;
[download]

Forcing the value into 8 bits doesn't even happen when you see that warning.

if (status < 0) {
    if (ckWARN(WARN_EXEC))
        Perl_warner(aTHX_ packWARN(WARN_EXEC), "Can't spawn \"%s\": %s
+", argv[0], strerror(errno));
        status = 255 * 256;
    }
    else
        status *= 256;            <---- coercion into 8 bits
    PL_statusvalue = status;
}
[download]

For starters, Windows error codes are unsigned.

The prototypes maybe defined as unsigned ints, but thay are treated as signed values.

Vis: using this C program that returns its first argument as the return code:

#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    for( int i=0; i < argc; ++i ) {
        printf( "%d : %s\n", i, argv[ i ] );
    }
    return atoi( argv[ 1 ] );
}
[download]

And running this command line:

C:\test\test\test>for /l %i in (-5, 1, 5) do test.exe %i & echo !error
+level!

C:\test\test\test>test.exe -5   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : -5
-5

C:\test\test\test>test.exe -4   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : -4
-4

C:\test\test\test>test.exe -3   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : -3
-3

C:\test\test\test>test.exe -2   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : -2
-2

C:\test\test\test>test.exe -1   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : -1
-1

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 0   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 0
0

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 1   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 1
1

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 2   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 2
2

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 3   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 3
3

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 4   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 4
4

C:\test\test\test>test.exe 5   & echo !errorlevel!
0 : test.exe
1 : 5
5
[download]

You can see that cmd.exe treats the return values as signed, otherwise the negative numbers input as strings would be returned as large positive values.

So, your "That's quite wrong", is quite wrong.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."