[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bug in the documentation, or ...?

From: nusret
Subject: Re: bug in the documentation, or ...?
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:42:46 -0800 (PST)

&& means exactly the same thing on both (see "Command
Shell Overview"  for XP, on Microsoft site-- google). 

The make file was not mine. It was one that I ran into
trouble. initially I built it using cygwin shell, but
I was curious about why such a simple thing got out of

Also I would prefer avoiding a cmd.exe replacement if
I can: As far as windows is concerned, it's just
another dependency.

On the other hand, make just executes the given shell
command. I don't know much about make, but I don't see
how it becomes more portable requiring bash or
whatever as a prerequisite (which it doesn't :).



--- Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:35:53 -0800 (PST)
> > From: nusret <address@hidden>
> > 
> > I really don't have any experience with
> Unix(-like)
> > systems. Someone told in some mailing list that if
> we
> > change ';' to '&&' the change will cause problems
> in
> > some unix systems. is this true? Why do you say &&
> is
> > safer?
> I don't know about ``safer'', but && means in CMD
> something utterly
> different from what it means in the Unixy /bin/sh. 
> On Unix, the part
> after && will be executed only if the part before it
> exited with a
> zero status, while in CMD, there's no such
> condition, AFAIK.
> Eventually, if you want a portable Makefile, you
> will have to use the
> same shell on all systems.  In practice, that means
> to use sh.exe on
> Windows, since CMD is not available on Unix.
> Alternatively, rewrite your Makefile to not need any
> non-portable
> shell features.  For example, `cd' could in this
> case be replaced by
> the following:
> foo: bar/lose
>       make -C bar gobble_lose
> assuming that there's a Makefile in `bar' whose
> `gobble_lose' target
> does `gobble lose > "../foo"' (and the quotes around
> ../foo are
> important!).

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

reply via email to

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