This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: 2 suggestions

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs at dmu dot ac dot uk>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, ray at learningnetworks dot com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:53:50 +0100 (WEST)
Subject: Re: 2 suggestions
References: <200504071637.j37GbNDi002651@caip.rutgers.edu><Pine.GSO.4.60.0504071808510.11272@brains.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk><200504071911.j37JBPM0022278@caip.rutgers.edu> <20050407192352.GA9095@synopsys.com>

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote:

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for
this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically
detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh.
Is there a specific test we can write that identifies a flawed /bin/sh?


Twisting the meaning of this slightly:  are there tests that show
what is wrong with a [for example, Solaris] /bin/sh?  A hailstorm of
bug reports might have enough momentum to move things along.

Hugh

References:
- Re: 2 suggestions
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
- Re: 2 suggestions
  - From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng
- Re: 2 suggestions
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
- Re: 2 suggestions
  - From: Joe Buck

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