|Subject:||Re: ENOEXEC from exec*() functions...?|
|Date:||Fri, 3 Jan 2020 22:51:43 +0000|
> please try make 4.2.93 and see if you get the right behavior.
Works for me.
Off topic for this thread and I don't want to stand in the way of progress towards pervasive use of a better C, but it was another notch more difficult to build, back in the Debian Jessie / gcc-4.9 era, thanks to some new for loop initial declarations in file.c and rule.c, which weren't legal in -std=gnu90, the compiler's default dialect.
From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 09:16
To: Martin Dorey <address@hidden>; Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: ENOEXEC from exec*() functions...?
***** EXTERNAL EMAIL *****
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 19:00 +0000, Martin Dorey wrote:
> Sorry to reanimate this but I think I've run into a regression in 4.2.92
> over 4.2.1 that's probably related to this old email thread. Bug or
> email, bug or email... email:
> martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ cat > Makefile
> all: ; ./dodgy
> martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ cat > dodgy
> martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ chmod +x dodgy
> martind@swiftboat:~/playpen/make-2019-10-08$ make ./dodgy
> make: *** [Makefile:1: all] Error 127
> "make" is 4.2.92 (today's git), where /usr/bin/make is actually 4.0, but
> 4.2.1 behaves the same.
Some changes were added for this to allow the posix_spawn detection to try
to determine whether it works properly; please try make 4.2.93 and see if
you get the right behavior.
It worked for me on GNU/Linux and MacOS.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|