Re: GNU make 4.2.90 release candidate available

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 16:25 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If they work that would be my preference, rather than adding
> > another variable.
> 
> Agreed.  If you can test that, that'd be great.

I tried it and it worked with Visual Studio (to use forward-slashes in
the source file name).

> > The rest of the changes look fine to me.
> 
> OK, will push them soon.
> 
> Do you want to keep the UMASK macro, or should we just call 'umask'
> under the HAVE_UMASK condition?

I don't see any point in the UMASK macro if we're going to check
HAVE_UMASK anyway.  Maybe, though, it would be nicer to create a dummy
umask() function in misc.c if HAVE_UMASK is not defined?  That would
avoid adding ifdefs in the code itself.

> > Question: why do we remove the .exe at the end of the command name in
> > main.c?  That seems odd to me, at first glance.  Is that something
> > common?
> 
> I don't remember why we are doing this, the code has been there since
> 2005.  Maybe so that the "Entering" and "Leaving" messages looked
> better? seeing "make.exe[2]:" there is quite ugly.

True.  Well, no one has complained so I don't see any point in changing
it.  Fixing this in the test suite, if we wanted to, is completely
trivial we just need to fix the MAKE substitution in one place in the
framework.

Cheers!