"Paul D. Smith" wrote: > > %% Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > av> Yes, it does require double backslashes somewhat inconsistently. > av> For consistency, one should use forward slashes and, for the few > av> utilities that reject them, apply $(subst /,\,$@) or similar. DOS > av> and Windows system calls have always accepted "/", in MS words: > av> "The application should use the backslash (\), the forward slash (/), > av> or both to separate components in a path" as mentioned in, e.g., > av> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnfiles/html/msdn_longfile.asp > > av> The patch I applied is described in bug #11183: > av> D:\tmp\TOOLS\make>diff -wu make\implicit.c make-p\implicit.c > av> --- make\implicit.c Mon Feb 28 08:48:22 2005 > av> +++ make-p\implicit.c Tue Mar 01 19:13:34 2005 > av> @@ -350,7 +350,11 @@ > av> && ((strchr (target, ']') == 0) > av> && (strchr (target, ':') == 0)); > av> #else > av> - check_lastslash = lastslash != 0 && strchr (target, '/') == > 0; > av> + check_lastslash = lastslash != 0 && strchr (target, '/') == 0 > av> +#ifdef HAVE_DOS_PATHS > av> + && strchr (target, '\\') == 0 /* and the "d:file"? */ > av> +#endif > av> + ; > av> #endif > av> if (check_lastslash) > av> { > > OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be > applied"?
Yes, it does. Or else we should also remove the other HAVE_DOS_PATHS in the same function so as to ban backslashes from %-patterns. > I'm a very simple person... I just want the answer :-) Two answers are better than one, aren't they? > Cheers! > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: > http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org > "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
