Re: [FYI] {master} maint: assume 'test -x' is portable

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

 



Eric Blake skrev 2012-02-23 23:42:
> On 02/23/2012 02:48 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> * lib/Makefile.am (installcheck-local): To verify that the installed
>> scripts are actually executable, simply use 'test -x', instead of
>> resorting to perl and its '-x' file operator.  Today, 'test -x'
>> should today be portable to any non-museum system.  Since we are at
>> it, improve diagnostic in case of failure.
> 
> The autoconf manual still recommends:
> 
> Do not use @samp{test -x}, because 4.3BSD does not
> have it.
> 
> Is this still an issue?  Or should we be updating the autoconf manual?

Hi!

Sorry for the late reply, but this might be relevant.  Personally, I wouldn't
classify the below as a working "test -x", but I'm not sure what working is in
this context...

Cheers,
Peter

$ uname -a
MINGW32_NT-6.1 PEDA-PC 1.0.17(0.48/3/2) 2011-04-24 23:39 i686 Msys
$ touch gurka
$ test -x gurka
$ echo $?
1
$ test -x gurka.exe
$ echo $?
1
$ chmod +x gurka
$ test -x gurka
$ echo $?
1
$ test -x gurka.exe
$ echo $?
1
$ rm gurka
$ touch gurka.exe
$ test -x gurka
$ echo $?
0
$ test -x gurka.exe
$ echo $?
0
$ chmod -x gurka.exe
$ test -x gurka
$ echo $?
0
$ test -x gurka.exe
$ echo $?
0

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf


[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux