Follow-up Comment #5, bug #41246 (project make):
I'm not sure I like the idea of this being a special target in this way. It's
also possible that something like this COULD be used on UNIX systems; there
are limits to the size of command lines that can be invoked. On newer systems
like Linux that limit is pretty large (I think it's 16K or so on Linux) but it
exists, and on other systems it's much less.
There's long been requests for "@-file" support embedded in make although
exactly what form that would take hasn't been defined clearly IIRC.
Let me ask this: would it be possible to simply use the existing ONESHELL
capability and just say that on Windows it writes the script to a file and
invokes the shell on it?
The downside of this is that ONESHELL actually behaves differently (although
often this doesn't matter).
Also, if the "normal" behavior doesn't handle something as basic as quoting
properly, why is BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL not the default? Is there a downside
to it?
Or alternatively, if we detect that the script has content that might be
problematic (quotes) we could automatically use the batch mode.
I guess I'd just prefer things to work right automatically, without
recompiling make or adding new pseudo targets. Is there a reason this is
tricky or difficult?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?41246>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
