> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:42:09 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think should be something like:
>
> static const char *sh_chars_sh = sh_chars;
>
> I'm not sure about the 'const' in the above, though.
Okay, here's a patch that replaces the previous one. Bill, could
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:53:38 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> runit:
> "c:/hoffman/My Builds/CMakeDev/Tests/COnly/b/run.exe" "a.c" "b.c"
> runit2:
> c:/hoffman/My\ Builds/CMakeDev/Tests/COnly/b/run.exe "a.c" "b.c"
>
> So, if th
At 04:32 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:50:03 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>>
>> >all:
>> >d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "a.c" "b.c"
>> >
>> >d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "a.c" "b.c"
>> >command line = {d:\f
At 04:29 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:26:34 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Why would sh_chars_sh be different from the standard sh_chars?
>
>I have no special reason, except that I copied the value from what is
>used by WINDOWS32. If
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:29:39PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:26:34 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Why would sh_chars_sh be different from the standard sh_chars?
>
>I have no special reason, except that I copied the value from what is
>use
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:50:03 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> >all:
> >d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "a.c" "b.c"
> >
> >d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "a.c" "b.c"
> >command line = {d:\full\path\to\rundump.exe a.c b.c}
> >argv[0] = {d:\ful
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:26:34 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Why would sh_chars_sh be different from the standard sh_chars?
I have no special reason, except that I copied the value from what is
used by WINDOWS32. If you think that's TRT, let's add `~' and `!', or
ju
At 03:02 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>I tried this program, and it verified that there's no problem on my
>system, where sh.exe is a native Windows shell. Here's what I get
>with this Makefile rule:
>
>all:
>d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "a.c" "b.c"
>
>d:/full/path/to/rundump.exe "
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:54:31PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>+# ifdef HAVE_DOS_PATHS
>+ /* This is required if the MSYS/Cygwin ports (which do not define
>+ WINDOWS32) are compiled with HAVE_DOS_PATHS defined, which uses
>+ sh_chars_sh[] directly (see below). The value is identical to
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:00:55 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> >If you run this program from that makefile you will see that the command
> >line actually received by the program is
> >
> > c:\full\path\to\runDump.exe "a.c b.c"
> >
> >Note that
At 02:42 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:56:56 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>>
>> >Please note that it is considered a shell character on _all_ systems
>> >when a Unixy shell is invoked. I believe the reason is tha
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:05:59 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On second thought, I have a better patch, to solve this. I will
> publish it shortly.
Okay, I'm now ready to go public. Please note that I didn't check
this with Cygwin, only with the GNU/Linux and MinGW build
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:58:14 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 01:52 PM 8/18/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >For the record, Eli, I REALLY appreciate the time and attention you're
> >giving this matter.
> >
> >cgf
>
> I will second that. At the end of the
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:55:16 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> >We cannot patch config.h.in, it's a generated file.
>
> Actually config.h is the generated file, and config.h.in is the source,
> but if you fix configure this part of the patch is
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:55 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For the record, Eli, I REALLY appreciate the time and attention you're
> giving this matter.
Thanks.
___
Make-w32 mailing list
Make-w32@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:56:56 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> >Please note that it is considered a shell character on _all_ systems
> >when a Unixy shell is invoked. I believe the reason is that a Posix
> >shell removes the quotes from the com
At 02:32 PM 8/18/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:55:16PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>At 01:29 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>We cannot patch config.h.in, it's a generated file.
>>
>>Actually config.h is the generated file, and config.h.in is the source,
>>b
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:55:16PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 01:29 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>We cannot patch config.h.in, it's a generated file.
>
>Actually config.h is the generated file, and config.h.in is the source,
>but if you fix configure this part of the patch is no go
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:58:14PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 01:52 PM 8/18/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>For the record, Eli, I REALLY appreciate the time and attention you're
>>giving this matter.
>
>I will second that. At the end of the day, the right thing is getting
>done. Than
At 12:56 PM 8/18/2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>OK, but there seems to be some extra work that needs to be done in
>CreateProcess to get the arguments correct.
Brad King who did the process execution stuff in cmake, had similar problems
with CreateProcess. I asked him to comment on the issue.
At 01:52 PM 8/18/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>For the record, Eli, I REALLY appreciate the time and attention you're
>giving this matter.
>
>cgf
I will second that. At the end of the day, the right thing is getting done.
Thanks.
-Bill
___
Mak
At 01:29 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:23:35 -0400
>> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> At 11:40 PM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand why isn't this just using the UNIX-ish settings for
>> >Cygwin. The settings should, at
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 08:42:15PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:38:29 -0400
>> From: Bill Hoffman
>>
>> >> /* Handle other OSs. */
>> >>! #if defined(HAVE_DOS_PATHS) && !defined(__CYGWIN__)
>> >> # define PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR ';'
>> >> #elif defined(VMS)
>> >> # def
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:38:29 -0400
> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> /* Handle other OSs. */
> >>! #if defined(HAVE_DOS_PATHS) && !defined(__CYGWIN__)
> >> # define PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR ';'
> >> #elif defined(VMS)
> >> # define PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR ','
> >
> >This is probably
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:23:35 -0400
> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 11:40 PM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why isn't this just using the UNIX-ish settings for
> >Cygwin. The settings should, at the very least, be the same as the
> >UNIX-sh case.
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:24:03 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> > Can this patch be moved into the main tree?
>
> I agree with this patch. Paul, can we include it in the sources?
On second thought, I have a better patch, to solve this. I will
publis
At 12:42 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:58:00 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>>
>> Just noticed:
>>
>> static char sh_chars_sh[] = "#;\"*?[]&|<>(){}$`^";
>>
>> Note the \" This is in the #ifdef __MSDOS__ section
At 12:44 PM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> For MPOV I would consider C:/absolute/path to be supported in all
>> cases.
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but what is MPOV?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Megalomaniacal_point_of_view
-Bill
___
Make-w32 mailin
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:59:22 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
>
> Personally, I think that a "mingw make" should just rely on cmd and a
> "msys make" should rely on sh.
I don't think this is practical: too many people are using GNU Make
with Unix-originated Makefil
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:55:13 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >So, Chris, are you okay with leaving this behavior in the Cygwin
> >build, or do you wish to opt for a safer /-only support for drive
> >letters? We need to make a decision, and I'd rather have yours than
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:45:59 -0400
> From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if this is what you're saying but I wouldn't mind an option
> >> but only if (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the default is
> >> --with-dos
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:38:51 -0400
> From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For MPOV I would consider C:/absolute/path to be supported in all
> cases.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is MPOV?
> However if SHELL != 'sh' then C:\absolute\path should be
> supported and \ loses its meaning a
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:58:00 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> Just noticed:
>
> static char sh_chars_sh[] = "#;\"*?[]&|<>(){}$`^";
>
> Note the \" This is in the #ifdef __MSDOS__ section which I assume
> is on for mingw.
No, MinGW picks u
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 09:07:33AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Quoting Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>At 04:48 PM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand why MinGW's make should be using anything like /bin/sh.
>>>Shouldn't it be using cmd.exe or command.com?
>>>
>>It
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:55:00PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:32:19 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >What is best should be decided by the Cygwin community, so you may
>> >wish to discuss this on the Cygwin list. (If it matters, my advice
At 09:27 AM 8/18/2006, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Only for the "native" binary. It isn't a "bad habit" it is a necessary one.
Well changing command line options into full paths is an unfortunate side
effect at best.
-Bill
___
Make-w32 mailing list
Make
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm not sure if this is what you're saying but I wouldn't mind an option
but only if (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the default is
--with-dos-paths rather than --without-dos-paths.
I'm saying two things: (a) I agree that the default should be
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I can't think of any examples, though.
The only examples I can think of is passing \b and \n to programs like
`echo' or `printf'. Even then, I'm not sure I can come up with a
specific case where the current code would cause a failure.
So, Chris, ar
Quoting "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But I want it to use sh.exe. The makefiles are mostly POSIX,
the only non-POSIX thing in them is the driver letter stuff.
C:/foo/bar.C. So cmd.exe does not like paths like that. Also,
Actually the newer versions of cmd.exe doesn't complai
Quoting "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
One thing: my original idea was to have a configure option that
enabled the DOS path capabilities. I note some here are advocating a
configure test which simply sets the HAVE_DOS_PATHS option if Cygwin
is detected, rather than leaving it up t
Quoting Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 04:48 PM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I don't understand why MinGW's make should be using anything like /bin/sh.
Shouldn't it be using cmd.exe or command.com?
cgf
It seems that if it finds sh.exe in the path it uses it.
Remember the chars
Quoting "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
One thing: my original idea was to have a configure option that
enabled the DOS path capabilities. I note some here are advocating a
configure test which simply sets the HAVE_DOS_PATHS option if Cygwin
is detected, rather than leaving it up to the
At 08:54 AM 8/18/2006, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>When the time comes, MSYS will mimick what Cygwin did.
Cool, then both of them will work. Will MSYS Still try to
convert / to the msys mount table? This cause trouble with
dos commands that use / for command line options.
cl /MD
gets converted to
cl
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:40:55 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> Strange, If you look at the debug output I sent there is no shell redirection
> going on, but sh is being used.
Redirection is only one of the reasons. Quotes and shell wildcards
a
Just noticed:
static char sh_chars_sh[] = "#;\"*?[]&|<>(){}$`^";
Note the \" This is in the #ifdef __MSDOS__ section which I assume
is on for mingw. Why is " considered a shell character?
-Bill
___
Make-w32 mailing list
Make-w32@gnu.org
http://
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:49:46 -0400
From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The Cygwin build could (and probably should) use configure.in, but the
> MinGW and MSVC ports don't use the configure script to
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
That one is for the DOS (a.k.a. DJGPP) port. The Windows ports use
config.h.W32.
Unless the Windows port is built using MSYS or Cygwin and then a
config.h is generated during the configure process.
Earnie Boyd
http://shop.siebunlimited.com
_
At 07:07 AM 8/18/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:37:37 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >>Make 3.81 adds a feature whereby you can say "SHELL = cmd.exe" and
>> >>have it use CMD even if sh.exe is on your PATH. Previous versions of
>> >>Make did
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:37:37 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>Make 3.81 adds a feature whereby you can say "SHELL = cmd.exe" and
> >>have it use CMD even if sh.exe is on your PATH. Previous versions of
> >>Make didn't allow even that.
> >
> >This behavior was cont
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:41:28 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:34:16AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:30:50 -0400
> >> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> I'm all for flexibility. I suspect that
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:32:19 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >What is best should be decided by the Cygwin community, so you may
> >wish to discuss this on the Cygwin list. (If it matters, my advice
> >would be to allow only the forward slashes for the Cygwin port, a
51 matches
Mail list logo
