IF it is working according to the documentation, then
I am OK with that. It just seemed odd to me.
Actually, in the case of this Makefile, it should make
no difference anyway as the abspath in the Makefile
was attempting to perform the same function as the
built-in abspath.
--- "Paul D. Smith" <
On Saturday, 23 September, William Gianopoulos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The $call abspath ends up calling the built-in abspath and does not use
> the one defined in rules.mk. This was verified both by adding fprintf's
> to the built-in abspath as well as the fact that I was able to fix my
> i
See attached file. Yahoo mail wordwraps everthing to
the point of unintelligibility.
--- Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 September, Eli Zaretskii
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > > This kind of brings up the question. Should the
> built-in abspath be
> > > overriding
On Saturday, 23 September, Eli Zaretskii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > This kind of brings up the question. Should the built-in abspath be
> > overriding a user defined function with the same name?
>
> I tend to agree. Paul, what are your thoughts on such conflicts?
I don't know what this mea
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: William Gianopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The older versions of make did not have an abspath
> function so the one that was defined in the Makefile
> was being used. That is why the NSS portion of
> Mozilla was able to compile with the old m
At 11:58 AM 8/21/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 05:11:14AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:15:41 -0400
>>> From: Earnie Boyd
>>>
>>> For the Cygwin variant which isn't currently using HAVE_DOS_PATHS users
>>> may indeed want the option to build
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 05:34:51AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:30:09 -0400
>>From: "William A. Hoffman"
>>
>>>Okay, here's a patch that replaces the previous one. Bill, could you
>>>please see that it compiles and works for you? Thanks.
>>
>>Compiles and works!
>
>Gre
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 05:11:14AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:15:41 -0400
>> From: Earnie Boyd
>>
>> For the Cygwin variant which isn't currently using HAVE_DOS_PATHS users
>> may indeed want the option to build their version configured
>> --without-dos-paths. Why
At 10:05 AM 8/21/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:08:16 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>>
>> The only thing sh_chars_dos seems to add is * and %. If you have a
>> \* or \% So the question is what should happen with :
>>
>>
> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:08:16 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> The only thing sh_chars_dos seems to add is * and %. If you have a
> \* or \% So the question is what should happen with :
>
> \foo\*
> and
> \foo\%
>
> Should they be \foo* an
At 02:26 PM 8/18/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>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
At 04:59 AM 8/21/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:02:03 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> However, if
>> I think about it some more... What if you try to escape a dos shell
>> character with \.
>
>Why would you want to do that?
>
>Anyway, I do
> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:30:09 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> >Okay, here's a patch that replaces the previous one. Bill, could you
> >please see that it compiles and works for you? Thanks.
>
> Compiles and works!
Great, thanks.
I'm travel
> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:15:41 -0400
> From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For the Cygwin variant which isn't currently using HAVE_DOS_PATHS users
> may indeed want the option to build their version configured
> --without-dos-paths. Why release a version of software where users
> migh
> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:02:03 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> However, if
> I think about it some more... What if you try to escape a dos shell character
> with \.
Why would you want to do that?
Anyway, I don't think there should be a problem if you do. Please
At 05:35 PM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:11:19PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>I obviously care that the patch gets done. What I do not care about is
>>the style of the code in make. The issue here is should sh_chars_sh be
>>directly referenced or not. I
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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)
Quoting Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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?
MPOV == My Point Of View.
Earnie Boyd
http://shop.siebun
Quoting "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
At 02:34 AM 8/19/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 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
> 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
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 15:26:34 -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
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 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
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 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 12:44 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 10:55:13 -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
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
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]>:
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 "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
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
_
> 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
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]>
>> Cc:
>>
>> >One thing: my original idea was to have a configure option that
>> >enabled the DOS path capabilities. I note some here are advoca
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:11:19PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>I obviously care that the patch gets done. What I do not care about is
>the style of the code in make. The issue here is should sh_chars_sh be
>directly referenced or not. I think it should not, Chris things it
>should. It rea
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:30:50 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
>
> >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
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:41:01PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:21:31 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
>>
>> It does make me wonder what kind of quoting problems we'd see with
>> HAVE_DOS_PATHS, though. On cygwin, I wouldn't want every back
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 04:56:03PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>Please don't dispair if I'm not as communicative as I usually am. For
>those not aware, in the "real world" I've decided to leave my previous
>position (of 13+ years!) and take on a new challenge. As a result,
>there is some turbulen
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:11:19 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I obviously care that the patch gets done. What I do not care about is the
> style of the code in make. The issue here is should sh_chars_sh
> be directly referenced or not. I think it should not, Ch
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:43:49 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This is even easier than I was thinking, really. If this value
> was defined in the appropriate pre-header file then an
>
> #ifndef PATH_SEPARATOR
> # define PATH_SEPARATOR ":"
> #endif
>
> in make.h woul
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:56:03 -0400
>
> Please don't dispair if I'm not as communicative as I usually am. For
> those not aware, in the "real world" I've decided to leave my p
At 04:56 PM 8/17/2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>Hi all;
>
>Please don't dispair if I'm not as communicative as I usually am. For
>those not aware, in the "real world" I've decided to leave my previous
>position (of 13+ years!) and take on a new challenge. As a result,
>there is some turbulence in my
At 04:30 PM 8/17/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:50:11 -0400
>> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >I'm not a make maintainer and don't really care about this one way or
>> >the other.
>> [...]
>> I am not a make maintainer either, and care even less than you.
>
>
Hi all;
Please don't dispair if I'm not as communicative as I usually am. For
those not aware, in the "real world" I've decided to leave my previous
position (of 13+ years!) and take on a new challenge. As a result,
there is some turbulence in my life at the moment and one consequence
of this is
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:30:53PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:50:11 -0400
>> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >I'm not a make maintainer and don't really care about this one way or
>> >the other.
>> [...]
>> I am not a make maintainer either, and care even
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:09:31PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:50:49 -0400
>> From: Christopher Faylor <[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 build
>>
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:21:31 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
>
> It does make me wonder what kind of quoting problems we'd see with
> HAVE_DOS_PATHS, though. On cygwin, I wouldn't want every backslash to
> be interpreted as part of a path name "just in case".
If
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:50:11 -0400
> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I'm not a make maintainer and don't really care about this one way or
> >the other.
> [...]
> I am not a make maintainer either, and care even less than you.
Sorry, Bill, you lost me here: I thought you _did_ ca
> 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 build
> > themselves, and so t
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:50:49 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <[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 build
> >themselves, and so the native builds cannot set PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR
At 01:21 PM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:38:29PM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>At 11:42 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote
>
>I'm not a make maintainer and don't really care about this one way or
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 build
themselves, and so the native builds cannot set PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR
there.
For MinGW, it can use configure if the MSY
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:42:53PM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 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 defin
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:38:29PM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>At 11:42 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>if (p[1] != '\\' && p[1] != '\''
>>>&& !isspace ((unsigned char)p[1])
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>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.
>
>Because there was a bug w
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:24:03AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:21:21 -0400
>> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> *** make-3.81/job.c Sun Mar 19 22:03:04 2006
>> --- ../make-3.81/job.c Wed Aug 16 19:42:14 2006
>> *** construct_command_argv_int
> 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
At 11:42 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>>if (p[1] != '\\' && p[1] != '\''
>>&& !isspace ((unsigned char)p[1])
>>! && strchr (sh_chars, p[1]) == 0)
>>
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.
Because there was a bug where sh_chars_sh was being directly referenced if
HAVE_DOS_PATHS wa
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:21:21 -0400
> From: Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> *** make-3.81/job.c Sun Mar 19 22:03:04 2006
> --- ../make-3.81/job.c Wed Aug 16 19:42:14 2006
> *** construct_command_argv_internal (char *l
> *** 2297,2302
> --- 2297,2316
>
I tried compiling 3.81 on cygwin with HAVE_DOS_PATHS,
and found the same crash described in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/make-w32@gnu.org/msg00861.html
I found the problem and fixed the crash.
Here is the patch:
*** make-3.81/job.c Sun Mar 19 22:03:04 2006
--- ../make-3.81/job.c
80 matches
Mail list logo
