[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4
From: |
ziedar |
Subject: |
Re: Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4 |
Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:39:41 -0400 |
-- Ralf Wildenhues wrote :
Hello Jim,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:48:49AM CEST:
>
> I've been working through some odd problems related to a user's
> attempt to build recent coreutils snapshots on a Maemo/OS2008 system.
> So far I've hit two problems:
> The first affected coreutils only (configure.in):
> The second (discovered minutes ago) affects the very latest autoconf:
Thanks for the report. It would be nice to see the results of 'make
check' of the Autoconf package with this patch applied.
> --- a/lib/autoconf/status.m4
> +++ b/lib/autoconf/status.m4
> @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ else
> # The final `:' finishes the AND list.
> ac_cs_awk_pipe_fini='END { print "|#_!!_#|"; print ":" }'
> fi]])
> -ac_cr='^M'
> +ac_cr=`echo .|tr . '\015'`
> ac_cs_awk_cr=`$AWK 'BEGIN { print "a\rb" }' </dev/null 2>/dev/null`
> if test "$ac_cs_awk_cr" = "a${ac_cr}b"; then
> ac_cs_awk_cr='\\r'
This breaks on EBCDIC hosts, no? I wonder how relevant that is these
days. FWIW, libtool.m4 does a simple check to distinguish both:
# test EBCDIC or ASCII
case `echo X|tr X '\101'` in
A) # ASCII based system
... ;;
*) # EBCDIC
... ;;
esac
If this test becomes expensive, it would probably be better to move it
from config.status time to be a configure time test.
Also, this change introduces a hard requirement of Autoconf on 'tr'
(otherwise used in Autotest, and only on some systems for AS_ECHO).
I wonder whether that will uncover more issues on exotic systems.
Also, 'tr' is not listed in the GNU Coding Standards as allowed tool
but I guess it should be. I assume it isn't because of all the
portability issues that are connected with this tool. Sigh.
Please add a space before '|' for readability.
Cheers,
Ralf
--
This message was sent on behalf of address@hidden at openSubscriber.com
http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/address@hidden/8949301.html
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, (continued)
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Elbert Pol, 2008/04/06
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
Re: Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4,
ziedar <=