Re: [FYI] {master} maint: assume 'test -x' is portable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 02/23/2012 11:49 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Eric wrote:
>> The autoconf manual still recommends:
>>
>> Do not use @samp{test -x}, because 4.3BSD does not
>> have it.
>>
>> Is this still an issue?  Or should we be updating the autoconf manual?
> 
> I remember this biting me within the last ~4 years' time.
> 
> I don't know if it's still an issue or not, though, as we might have
> places in our codebase where 'test -x' may have crept back in since
> then.
> 
> If there is an easy way to test for it, I'd rather there was something
> like an AC_SANITY macro that would test for these ancient cases and
> squawk if the running system botched them.
> 
This sounds like a great idea IMO.  Automake could immediately benefit
from it, by having it verify that the system 'rm' does not complain if
given no file operand when the '-f' option is in use, which would allow a
nice simplification of the automake-generated cleanup rules; reference:

  <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10828>

Regards,
  Stefano


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf


[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [USB]     [Samba]
  Powered by Linux