Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:31:31 -0400
From: Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Hm. I just can't think of any but the most obscure cases where this is
true. The DOS pathname handling in vanilla GNU make, as far as I know,
is very specific: if and ONLY if the first character of a
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:09:16 -0400
From: Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com, bug-make@gnu.org
I believe that this support is limited to handling drive letters without
choking on the :, actually: IIRC the native support still requires
forward slashes (/) rather than
%% Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
cf There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile
cf which contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in
cf that case. Despite having suggested this repeatedly, it seems
cf some users are still not clear on
On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
If this could cause some valid Makefiles to do the wrong thing as cgf
suggests might happen, then can we
Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
This means that if something like a makefile parses fine in linux, but
not in cygwin (barring linker stuff), something is wrong.
Yeah, what's wrong is that cl
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
This means that if something like a makefile parses fine in linux, but
not in cygwin (barring linker
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
This means that if something like a makefile parses
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux,
%% John W. Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jwe On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
jwe If this could cause some valid Makefiles to
Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% John W. Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jwe On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
jwe If this could cause
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:56:20AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% Christopher Faylor writes:
cf If you want to use a Makefile which works in a Cygwin environment,
cf however, then obviously you need to build it with a Cygwin gcc.
You'll have to forgive my virtually complete ignorance of all
On 28-Jul-2006, Chris Taylor wrote:
| So even if the DOS #ifdef was enabled, we'd be back at the point of
| having patches to attempt to fix this behaviour.
| Unless there was some way of having two versions of make - one with this
| behaviour and one without, controlled by /etc/alternatives
On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| This would be very tricky: right now all the code to do DOS vs. POSIX
| pathnames is controlled through #ifdefs, so it's a compile-time thing.
| Changing it to a runtime thing would be a lot of work, I think... the
OK, but I still think it should be
Michael Eager wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully
%% Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or is there something special going on that means this won't work?
cf I think this has been answered later in the thread, but the short answer
cf is - the MinGW make won't recognize the cygwin mount table or symlinks,
cf so you can't use
%% John W. Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jwe On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| This would be very tricky: right now all the code to do DOS vs. POSIX
| pathnames is controlled through #ifdefs, so it's a compile-time thing.
| Changing it to a runtime thing would be a lot of work, I
%% Brian Dessent [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bd To summarize, the Cygwin version of make prior to 3.81 contained
bd local patches to support both posix and Windows paths. The Cygwin
bd maintainer got tired of continuously maintaining these local
bd patches and so when packaging 3.81 the
%% I wrote:
pds I believe that this support is limited to handling drive letters without
pds choking on the :, actually: IIRC the native support still requires
pds forward slashes (/) rather than backslashes (\). I could be wrong
pds though. I'm not sure how Cygwin's pathname management
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant about the details.
There is no advantage
There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which
contains
MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using Cygwin
is that so many Linux-like tools are available from one central installer.
If
William Sheehan wrote:
I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be fix
your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important component. As
others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very large Makefile systems
that support a wide variety of compilation
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:31:53PM -0700, William Sheehan wrote:
There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which
contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using
Cygwin is that so many
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:40:18PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
William Sheehan wrote:
I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be
fix your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important
component. As others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very
large
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, we have had people who have complained because make became
confused by certain uses of a ':' in the old version of make. I see now
that this is because of the attempt to interpret a valid make rule as
a MS-DOS path.
So, I'm less inclined to want to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:07:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, we have had people who have complained because make became
confused by certain uses of a ':' in the old version of make. I see
now that this is because of the attempt to interpret a valid make rule
I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be fix
your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important component. As
others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very large Makefile systems
that support a wide variety of compilation toolchains. Cygwin make
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant about the
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:16:38PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
There are two equally unpleasant resolutions recommended: either
install two products (Cygwin and MinGW) or retain a back-level version
of make, forgoing all future bug fixes. Neither are very good, but
I've opted for the second
William Sheehan wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile
which contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW
makes perfect sense in that case.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using Cygwin
is that so many
29 matches
Mail list logo
