From: "Laurynas Biveinis" Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:49:13 +0200 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure? Message-ID: <20010629174913.C659@lauras.lt> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com References: <3395-Wed20Jun2001200621+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B3890D8 DOT 12023 DOT 1A6E91 AT localhost> <20010628184544 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <20010629142627 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <3395-Fri29Jun2001175316+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3395-Fri29Jun2001175316+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > On second thought, I don't think I understand the problem in this case > and why does moving conftest out of the way solves it: running both > foo and foo.exe should have produced the same effect in this case, > since they are both the same program. Could you explain why you think > it fails? It runs both ways, but in extensionless case Bash thinks it didn't. Why? Well, there I agree that my analysis was to shallow. But one thing is clear - extensionless executable confuses bash, while the other one doesn't. > (I also think you meant hello, not conftest.) Whatever - hello was from yesterday's debugging session, conftest is from today. > Also, I thought you wanted the extensionless program toi run at the > expense of the one with extension, no? Yes... > At least I think Tim and Mark > wanted that. But you seem to say that running the extensionless > program is harmful in this case. ...and yes, but the later is quite clear fact. There should be another reason, of course, and some additional debugging won't harm. Laurynas