On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 10:46 +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 10:32 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> Stepan Kasal <kasal@xxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>> * lib/autoconf/general.m4 (_AC_LINK_IFELSE): Skip
> AS_TEST_X
> >>> when cross-compiling.
> >>
> >> Thanks, I installed that.
> >
> > Hmm, I am not convinced. If this check can be skipped for cross
> > compilation (Which I think is not correct), why can't it always be
> > skipped?
>
> As I read the background discussion, leading to introduction of this
> extended test, it appears that it was introduced to appease one broken
> compiler suite,
Wrong.
It was triggered by running standard autoconf-2.61 configure scripts on
MinGW and Cygwin.
> running on an elderly minority platform.
... if you want to label MinGW with this attribute, I agree.
> In so doing,
> it has broken a feature of autoconf itself, on a current and widely
> deployed platform, namely Microsoft Windows.
Wrong again.
It is triggered by MinGW/Cygwin's "test -x" behavior diverging from
POSIX:
-x pathname
True if pathname resolves to a file that exists and for which
permission to execute the file (or search it, if it is a
directory) will be granted, as defined in File Read, Write, and
Creation. False if pathname cannot be resolved, or if pathname
resolves to a file for which permission to execute (or search)
the file will not be granted.
NOTE: This definition is completely independent from a file being a
executable natively on a platform.
To me this reads as: MinGW and Cygwin's "test -x" are broken.
Wrt. autoconf this would mean: "test -x" is non-portable. autoconf must
not use it anywhere.
The way easier approach however would be MinGW and Cygwin to be fixed.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
