From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Compiling GCC
Date:	Sun, 26 Sep 1999 07:57:03 +0200
Organization:	NetVision Israel
Lines:	11
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990926075514.17688C-100000@is>
References:	<B0000102732 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv> <B0000102979 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.netvision.net.il 938325348 20430 199.203.121.2 (26 Sep 1999 05:55:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date:	26 Sep 1999 05:55:48 GMT
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
In-Reply-To:	<B0000102979@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I would agree that //x/foo is not nice idea, but I also think that 
> dependence of results on directory name (results are different for
> c:/tmp/x/   and   c:/tmp/xxxxxxxx/  shows that we perhaps have a bug

What I wanted to point out was that it might be not a bug in the usual 
sense, but rather some side-effect of the special hacks that Bash 1.14.7 
does to avoid interpreting Sed scripts as file names in the //x/foo 
format.  I agree that from the user's point of view it is still a bug.

- Raw text -