On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 11:04 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Ralf Corsepius on 4/12/2007 10:43 AM: > > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 05:12 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> According to Ralf Corsepius on 4/12/2007 4:46 AM: > >>> To me this reads as: MinGW and Cygwin's "test -x" are broken. > >> Give an example where cygwin's "test -x" is broken. > > RTEMS users have reported it for both MinGW and for Cygwin. > > > > Cf. these are the Cygwin variant: > > http://rtems.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-users/2007-March/017888.html > > OK, thanks for the pointer - that mail is an example of a cross compiler, > run on cygwin, but generating non-cygwin files and on a file system that > lacks executable permission bits. Why should permission bits matter? What matters is the executable bit. AFAICT, even old FAT had them. > It provides more proof that > cross-compilers need not do the -x check, Could you please elaborate why autoconf would a need any -x check at all? > so the recent checkin that only > turns off -x checking for cross-compilers was correct. IMO, it is playing with symptoms. Either this -x is always relevant or it is never relevant. > I was more worried > that you might have come up with an instance where a cygwin native > executable test was failing. IMO, the reports proves Cygwin's and MinGW's "test -x" to be defective. As a consequence of this, this render using "test -x" on both Cygwin and MinGW a random accident and (in our case) qualify Cygwin and MinGW as non-suitable hosts for cross-compilation. Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
