Not sure if this is the appropriate avenue for this question:
why don't we use a website like stackoverflow or some other forum-based site
for these communications?
Wouldn't it be easier for people to find stuff?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, "make-w32@gnu.org" <make-w32@gnu.org>
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:54:35 -0400
>>
>>> On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 20:36 +0000, Adrian Muresan wrote:
>>> Does batch_mode_shell = 1 mean that it always uses the sh.exe instead
>>> of Windows.cmd?
>>
>> No. It's clear that make is not using Windows command.com, because the
>> script you're running is a POSIX shell script, not a command.com batch
>> script. If you tried to enter those commands into your command.com
>> prompt you'd get a syntax error.
>>
>> What that flag means (as I understand it: I'm not that familiar with
>> this aspect of Windows support) is that make will never try to invoke
>> the shell directly passing the recipe to be run on the command line.
>>
>> Instead it is being forced to always write the recipe to a temporary
>> file ("batch file") on your disk and invoke the shell such that it runs
>> the recipe in the temporary file.
>
> Yes, that's true. As an aside, the Windows shell is cmd.exe, not
> command.com, and Make uses cmd.exe if either (a) the Makefile requires
> that with the "SHELL =" command, or (b) it cannot find any sh.exe on
> PATH.
_______________________________________________
Make-w32 mailing list
Make-w32@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
