[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:01:05 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.0.5

On 08/16/2010 03:54 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/16/2010 07:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/15/2010 04:11 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 08/15/10 21:26, David Fang wrote:
I'm desperate enough to use sed to patch config.status after it's been

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?

The bug is not in 'echo', but in the improper use of $(ECHO) within ``
inside the Makefile.  Autoconf has no business inspecting whether
Makefile.am has a use of $(ECHO) that might be broken due to libtool's
change of how $(ECHO) is defined, and whether that change will cause
breakage because $(ECHO) is being used incorrectly in the Makefile.

I don't see how changing anything in autoconf could help in this situation.

That said, it may still be possible to patch libtool to define $ECHO in
such a way that will be more robust to use with `` in a Makefile.

Considering libtool does not do AC_SUBST([ECHO]), I don't think this is useful. If at all doable: consider that $ECHO might even expand to func_fallback_echo on some systems.


reply via email to

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