Re: Windows-specific bug 11183

[Paul D. Smith]

%% Alessandro Vesely <address@hidden> writes:

  av> Yes, it does require double backslashes somewhat inconsistently.
  av> For consistency, one should use forward slashes and, for the few
  av> utilities that reject them, apply $(subst /,\,$@) or similar. DOS
  av> and Windows system calls have always accepted "/", in MS words:
  av> "The application should use the backslash (\), the forward slash (/),
  av> or both to separate components in a path" as mentioned in, e.g.,
  av> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnfiles/html/msdn_longfile.asp

  av> The patch I applied is described in bug #11183:
  av> D:\tmp\TOOLS\make>diff -wu make\implicit.c make-p\implicit.c
  av> --- make\implicit.c     Mon Feb 28 08:48:22 2005
  av> +++ make-p\implicit.c   Tue Mar 01 19:13:34 2005
  av> @@ -350,7 +350,11 @@
  av>                              && ((strchr (target, ']') == 0)
  av>                                  && (strchr (target, ':') == 0));
  av>  #else
  av> -          check_lastslash = lastslash != 0 && strchr (target, '/') == 0;
  av> +          check_lastslash = lastslash != 0 && strchr (target, '/') == 0
  av> +#ifdef HAVE_DOS_PATHS
  av> +            && strchr (target, '\\') == 0 /* and the "d:file"? */
  av> +#endif
  av> +          ;
  av>  #endif
  av>            if (check_lastslash)
  av>              {


OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be
applied"?

I'm a very simple person... I just want the answer :-)


Cheers!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://make.paulandlesley.org
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist