This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 26 May 2006 06:43:44 -0600
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
References: <e2u1im$niv$1@sea.gmane.org> <20060502192044.GD1691@iam.uni-bonn.de> <4471E06C.6010300@lu.unisi.ch> <jesln1ktfq.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <orhd3d1m0r.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

Alexandre> On May 23, 2006, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
>> This lacks a pair of quotes around `dirname "$1"`.  Note that "`dirname
>> "$1"`" is not portable,

Alexandre> Well, *using* dirname is not portable :-)

We already use dirname in libjava's Makefile.

libjava doesn't build, and probably never will build, on the bizarre
machines that set the baseline for autoconf.  I don't think we need to
worry excessively about this stuff.

Andrew H. asks on irc why we don't simply use zip in the build.  Is
there an answer to this?  That may be much simpler.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Paolo Bonzini

References:
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Ralf Wildenhues
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: [RFT/RFA] bashjar patch
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]