Re: GNATS needs some work (autoconf/59)

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan 30, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:

> if (PATH=.;`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
>   # We like `;', let's use it.
> else if (PATH=.:`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
>   # We like `:', let's use it.
> else
>   # Get lost.
> fi

Hmm...  It's just occurred to me that this kind of test may not work
in general.  AFAIK, some old Unices just won't run shell-scripts like
that; you have to explicitly specify the shell that must run them.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but if I'm right, it defeats the whole
testing mechanism.  We can't have an executable, because then we'd
need a compiler for the build machine, and we can't have a script
because we may have to explicitly specify a shell, and then, then
shell may not search the PATH.

:-(

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me