[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a couple of patches to deal with w32 semantics

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: a couple of patches to deal with w32 semantics
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:58:16 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Loom/3.14 (

Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at>> writes:

> here are two more patches for w32.  When applied, the testsuite passes
> for me on MinGW and Cygwin.  I'd appreciate if someone firmer than me
> with the specialities on these system could confirm that my rationales
> are not nonsense.
> OK to apply?

Bah - I posted and committed a similar patch before I read this.

> +# If making a directory and moving files from there to . succeeds, we
> +# are probably on cygwin.

Not just cygwin, but windows in general.  And not just moving files into a read-
only directory, but deleting files from there as well.  Isn't it scary that 
Windows thinks everyone deserves root-like privileges?

>  chmod a-w .
> -AT_CHECK([./config.status var-$1 </dev/null], [1], [ignore], [ignore])
> +AT_CHECK([./config.status var-$1 </dev/null], [1], [ignore], [ignore],
> +      [AT_CHECK([{ test -d t || mkdir t; } && : >t/foo && mv -f 
t/foo ./foo])])

I'm a little more comfortable with my patch - simply skipping the AT_CHECK if 
we know that the file will be created.

>     On MinGW, substitution of CR and 0xFF fails.
>     * tests/ (Substitute and define special characters):
>     MinGW awk cannot handle 0xFF, and on MinGW, the test does the
>     wrong thing for CR.

I can't speak for this one (I avoid mingw as much as possible, only cross-
compiling there), but it looks reasonable.  Please apply.

Eric Blake

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]