[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Windows-specific bug 11183

From: Paul D. Smith
Subject: Re: Windows-specific bug 11183
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:04:34 -0500

%% "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:

  >> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:03:45 +0100
  >> From: Alessandro Vesely <address@hidden>
  >> Cc: address@hidden
  >> > OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be
  >> > applied"?
  >> Yes, it does. Or else we should also remove the other HAVE_DOS_PATHS
  >> in the same function so as to ban backslashes from %-patterns.

  ez> The other HAVE_DOS_PATHS fragment handles backslashes in _filenames_,
  ez> while this one handles backslashes in _patterns_.  So they are not
  ez> equivalent, and their omission for patterns is on purpose (Paul stated
  ez> the reasons).

One thing that could be done, if it was deemed useful, is to make the
backslash-in-patterns smarter so that a backslash before a % escaped the
%, but a backslash anywhere else was just a backslash.

This, obviously, would just be a DOS/Windows change.

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

reply via email to

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