[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: simple useful functions

From: Tak Ota
Subject: Re: simple useful functions
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:25:02 -0800

Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:23:21 -0800: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> >> IIUC these scripts are written for /bin/sh, right?  How do (t)csh users
> >> handle that?
> >> [ Sorry, I'm not that familiar with cross-compiling: OpenWRT is about
> >> as far as I got into this, and it "takes care of things" in ways
> >> I haven't tried to understand.  They don't use such setup scripts, at
> >> least in a user-visible way (although the user does perform the
> >> cross-compiling).  ]
> > Those scripts are written for the shell the tool provider intends user
> > to use.  The shell to use is not always our choice.
> In the case of the scripts you've used, was there some way to
> mechanically figure out which shell was intended?  I'm thinking that
> using shell-file-name is probably not the right choice, and we should
> instead default to /bin/sh (which I'd expect to be the most common
> case).
> > This is a good point.  I am contaminating the whole emacs.  It made me
> > review compile.el and I learned the existence of
> > compilation-environment which I think is more appropriate than
> > `setenv' function.
> So only `compile' needs to know about these env-vars?

No, the debugger also needs.  I don't find similar consideration in
gdb-ui.el.  Do you have a better suggestion?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]