[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:11:12 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6

On 08/15/10 21:26, David Fang wrote:
> I'm desperate enough to use sed to patch config.status after it's been
> generated:

If you're that desperate, you're desperate enough to use bash
instead of the broken Darwin shell, no?

To others:

Would it be appropriate to patch Autoconf to generate a 'configure'
that rejects that implementation of 'echo', if it discovers the bug?

>     ECHO='printf %s\n'
> with
>     ECHO='echo'
> to get the old behavior.

Wouldn't it be more-reliable to double the backslash?  Urgh.
Perhaps Autoconf could fall back on ECHO='printf %s\\n' if
it discovers the bug.  (Make that a Double Urgh.)

reply via email to

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