Re: Problem with backslash/newline on DOS/Windows/OS2/etc.?

[Earnie Boyd]

On 1:38:53 pm 2005-07-12 "Paul D. Smith" <address@hidden> wrote:

>
>   eb> --disable-eol-backslash
>   eb> --enable-eol-backslash
>
>   eb> --disable-eol-backslash would be set on by default for known to
> be non   eb> POSIX targets else --enable-eol-backslash would be set
> by default.
>
> No, I don't want to do that.  The more options like this we have the
> harder it is to test, maintain, etc.
>

Ok.

> For UNIX, there won't be any choice about the matter.  GNU make will
> behave according to the POSIX spec in this regard; I don't see any
> profit whatsoever in allowing both behaviors.
>
> For non-POSIX systems like DOS/Windows we are already breaking the
> POSIX spec in some respects, so I have no problem if you want the
> behavior to be different in some cases, esp. if SHELL is not a
> UNIX-type shell. But, I'd prefer that the code be able to detect this
> itself without requiring the user to specify an argument.
>
>   eb> Then use the prior code for --disable-eol-backslash and use the
>   eb> new code for --enable-eol-backslash.
>
> The "prior code" is gone; I rewrote that entire section (and it needed
> it, too!)  We'll have to reconstitute the correct behavior, which
> shouldn't be that difficult to do, actually.  This code is easier to
> understand and work with than it was before.
>

Is there some macro that identifies a POSIX compliant system?  It would be
a matter of concantenation before the process spawn.

Earnie