> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:36:41 +0800 > From: "Yongwei Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: make-w32@gnu.org > > > Beware: the make.exe binary produced in this way is not guaranteed to > > behave like intended. This is because this way of building a native > > Windows port of Make is not officially supported. As one caveat, you > > will see that config.h.W32.template has near its end a few symbols > > whose definition changes Make's behavior wrt program invocation with > > various shells you might have installed: I'm not sure what the > > configure script does with those definitions, so please at least look > > at those symbols and verify that the binary you produced will behave > > as you'd like it to. > > I checked config.h, and the only things I have some doubts are:
I didn't mean config.h, I meant specifically config.h.W32.template. (Because you ran the configure script, it used the general config.h.in rather than the W32 template, to create config.h, and config.h.in does not have those symbols.) There are several symbols near the end of the template that you need to consider: BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL HAVE_CYGWIN_SHELL HAVE_MKS_SHELL Please read the comments that describe each one of them (and the code that uses them, if the comments are not clear enough). > I also doubt config.h.W32.template may be a little out of date. It > defines some macros that are never used, like HAVE_LONG_FILE_NAMES and > HAVE_STRFTIME. I guess someone needs to resync the templates (not only W32) with config.h.in. > I mean, which is the official position where I can grab the version > number (instead of running autoreconf)? I don't know. Paul, can you help? _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
