[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 (http://gmane.org/) |
Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> 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/torture.at (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