Hi Tim, * Tim Rice wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:41:21PM CEST: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > : * Tim Rice wrote on Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 10:05:21PM CEST:
> : > I re-ran the tests using ksh88 and all tests passed. > : > Must be a ksh bug. > : > Version M-11/16/88h passes quote test > : > Version M-12/28/93e-SCO fails quote test > : > : Please post the failing output of > : make check TESTS=quote.test VERBOSE=x > : > : Thank you. > > -----------< begin "make check TESTS=quote.test VERBOSE=x" >------------ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14% gmake check TESTS=quote.test VERBOSE=x > === Running quote.test > == compile mode > = trying: \\ quoting > = failed: mkdir .libs > cc -c "-DVAR=\\test\\" foo.c -KPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > cc -c "-DVAR=\\test\\" foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 > = trying: \" quoting > = failed: mkdir .libs > cc -c "-DVAR=\"test\"" foo.c -KPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > cc -c "-DVAR=\"test\"" foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 > = trying: \` quoting > = failed: mkdir .libs > cc -c "-DVAR=\`test\`" foo.c -KPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > cc -c "-DVAR=\`test\`" foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 > = trying: \$ quoting > = failed: mkdir .libs > cc -c "-DVAR=\$test\$" foo.c -KPIC -DPIC -o .libs/foo.o > cc -c "-DVAR=\$test\$" foo.c -o foo.o >/dev/null 2>&1 *snip* > FAIL: quote.test OK. This is mostly harmless, and we should eventually adjust quote.test. I tried to fix this in CVS HEAD with a patch on 2004-12-28 but had to throw that back out on 2005-06-05 because that broke on other systems' shells. Thanks for posting. > : *snip* > : > : Content-Description: branch-1-5-uw.patch *snip* > : > : > > : > : > -sysv4*uw2* | unixware7*) > : > : > +unixware7*) > : > : > : > : Now, this macro doesn't have a match for sysv4*uw2* any more. Is this > : > : intentional? > : > > : > Quite intentional. Look at the case above, it already had sysv4*uw2* so > : > the one I removed would never have been used anyway. Adding the "pc)" > : > case to the $host_vendor part did what the other case was supposed to do. > : > : Erm, it had sysv4.2uw2* but not sysv4*uw2*. If both should be treated > : similarly here, then you should replace the former with the latter (in > : the line where sysv4 is also matched) > > Remind me never to take a proof reading job. I guess my brain was focusing > in the uw2 part. > All UnixWare 2.x versions (and 1.x) are sysv4.2, so the sysv4*uw2 entry > becomes redundant. Well, I _was_ cheating a bit: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2005-09/msg00013.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-09/msg00036.html (be sure to look through both threads -- I installed a bogus patch first, stumbling over this exact same issue ;-) > : > It could be cleanded up further by having "sysv5* | unixware7*)". > : > (UnixWare 7 is sysv5) > : > : Hmm, then both of those should be treated similarly, I guess? > > Yes. OK. Cheers, Ralf
