Eric Blake skrev 2012-02-27 14:58: > On 02/26/2012 03:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> 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... > > Thanks for chiming in. I still haven't pushed my proposed patches to > autoconf, and I'd like to make sure that what I'm proposing for autoconf > still gets by on your MSYS system (I don't have MSYS set up myself, so > getting feedback from you would be fastest). I assume that some of MSYS > behavior on FAT is similar to cygwin on FAT, and I have been testing > Cygwin on FAT, but I also know that Cygwin and MSYS have diverged so > that is not necessarily a reliable result. Note, this is all MSYS on NTFS, no FAT in sight. >> $ 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 > > This says an empty file is not executable. Fine - there's no #! in the > file, and MSYS tends to store files on FAT filesystems that can't track > real permissions, anyway, so faking things based on contents is not an > issue. > > What does './gurka; echo $?' do in this situation? >> $ chmod +x gurka >> $ test -x gurka >> $ echo $? >> 1 > > You didn't show $? nor 'ls -l' after 'chmod +x', but your transcript > implies that since the filesystem can't record executable bits, that > chmod is silently ignored, and the faking of executability is still > being done. $ touch gurka $ ./gurka; echo $? 0 $ ls -lG gurka -rw-r--r-- 1 peda 0 Feb 27 15:39 gurka $ chmod +x gurka; echo $? 0 $ ls -lG gurka -rw-r--r-- 1 peda 0 Feb 27 15:39 gurka $ ./gurka; echo $? 0 $ echo paprika > gurka $ ./gurka; echo $? ./gurka: line 1: paprika: command not found 127 $ rm gurka $ echo "echo gurka" > gurka $ ls -lG gurka -rw-r--r-- 1 peda 11 Feb 27 15:49 gurka $ ./gurka; echo $? gurka 0 >> $ touch gurka.exe >> $ test -x gurka >> $ echo $? >> 0 > > This says part of the faking is done via file extension (although an > empty length .exe should never occur in practice). > > I'm also interested in the behavior of the following (which is what I > have proposed that autoconf adds to all configure scripts, and will fail > if it cannot find a shell that claims to work): > > test -x /; echo $? > test -x .; echo $? > printf '#!/bin/sh\nexit 0\n' > foo.sh > ./foo.sh; echo $? > test -x foo.sh; echo $? > chmod a+x foo.sh; echo $? > ./foo.sh; echo $? > test -x foo.sh; echo $? > > Once I know those behaviors, I think I can ensure that my proposed test > to require a "working" 'test -x' as a pre-req of finding a sane shell > should still work for MSYS. $ test -x /; echo $? 0 $ test -x .; echo $? 0 $ printf '#!/bin/sh\nexit 0\n' > foo.sh $ ./foo.sh; echo $? 0 $ test -x foo.sh; echo $? 0 $ chmod a+x foo.sh; echo $? 0 $ ./foo.sh; echo $? 0 $ test -x foo.sh; echo $? 0 Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
