https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8044
--- Comment #47 from Sidney Markowitz <sid...@sidney.com> --- (In reply to RvdH from comment #46) And is is it worth to also have sa-compile as executable? (JAM also lacks > this) All the executables except spamc are perl scripts, which on Unix and macOS the command shell recognizes as executables that are run by launching perl. cmd.exe doesn't do that, so the makefile packages them up as bat files that have batch commands that invoke perl in a way that reads the perl script that follows in the very same bat file. So spamd ends up as spamd.bat. As a result only spamc requires Visual Studio to build, and other than spamc.exe you don't need exe files since you have the bat files. sa-compile is another issue, as it requires that you install re2c which is a program that converts regular expressions to c, then you need a C compiler to compile the results, and then the resulting executables have to be run. I haven't tried getting all that working under Windows, so I don't know how much of it, if anything, has been implemented to work in Windows. Since the purpose is only to get the rules to run faster than if they were run in pure perl, with no change in functionality, it might not even be worth the effort to get it working in Windows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
