Re: [PATCH 2/3] config.sub: Factor out `invalid_config` function

[John Cotton Ericson]

On 9/21/23 22:31, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 3:52 PM, John Ericson wrote:
> > ...
> > >  # Functions
> > >  ###########
> > >
> > > +# Invalid configuration; display a message and exit
> > > +#
> > > +# Param 1: configuration
> > > +# Param 2: message
> > > +invalid_config () {
> > > +    echo "Invalid configuration '$1': $2" 1>&2
> > > +    exit 1
> > > +}
> >
> > Um. I don't think you can use shell functions in this file (or in 
> > config.guess), for the same reason you can't use $(...).
>
> Not quite the same reason, although Zack *could* be right here, at 
> least according to the Shell Differences FAQ mentioned in the Autoconf 
> manual at 
> <URL:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/shell-differences/>: 
> while the Bourne shell now almost always supports shell functions, the 
> original Bourne shell did not have that feature.
>
> It may be worth noting that the Solaris 10 sh does not support $(...) 
> but *does* support at least simple shell functions; I just tested this 
> at gcc210 on the GCC compile farm.  Similarly, the "bsh" AIX shell on 
> gcc111 also supports functions but not $(...); the default "ksh" login 
> shell on gcc111 supports both, as does the default "bash" login shell 
> on gcc210.
>
> I think we *can* use shell functions in these files, since even the 
> Solaris 10 and AIX7.1 Bourne shells support them despite lacking 
> support for $(...); I do not have convenient access to anything more 
> ancient at the moment for further testing.

Oh whew, that's good to hear Jacob. I suppose I hope we can try it, and 
wait for anyone to report things broke (that didn't take too long with 
$(...)) and then revert it if we get any such report?

John