> please try make 4.2.93 and see if you get the right behavior. Works for me.
Off topic for this thread and I don't want to stand in the way of progress towards pervasive use of a better C, but it was another notch more difficult to build, back in the Debian Jessie / gcc-4.9 era, thanks to some new for loop initial declarations in file.c and rule.c, which weren't legal in -std=gnu90, the compiler's default dialect. ________________________________ From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 09:16 To: Martin Dorey <martin.do...@hitachivantara.com>; Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org <bug-make@gnu.org> Subject: Re: ENOEXEC from exec*() functions...? ***** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***** On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 19:00 +0000, Martin Dorey wrote: > Sorry to reanimate this but I think I've run into a regression in 4.2.92 > over 4.2.1 that's probably related to this old email thread. Bug or > email, bug or email... email: > > martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ cat > Makefile > all: ; ./dodgy > martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ cat > dodgy > true > martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ chmod +x dodgy > martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ make ./dodgy > make: *** [Makefile:1: all] Error 127 > > "make" is 4.2.92 (today's git), where /usr/bin/make is actually 4.0, but > 4.2.1 behaves the same. Some changes were added for this to allow the posix_spawn detection to try to determine whether it works properly; please try make 4.2.93 and see if you get the right behavior. It worked for me on GNU/Linux and MacOS.
