Hello, Paul. Friday, August 16, 2013, 22:18:31 you wrote:
>> Presumably make works at least 99% correctly on Windows using spawn*(). >> I don't doubt at all that the patch actually works great with most uses >> of make in Cygwin. However, I would rather be 100% correct and slower >> than 99% correct with head scratching corner case errors. > Exactly, hence the reason for my question. I'm not interested in adding > this if, when it's enabled, things don't work correctly. > On the other hand I'm not sure it's not possible to get things working > correctly. Or, perhaps it's possible to make them work correctly Let me come in again ? Let's take a look at what we have. We have a pending change, which has undergone some testing. It works. At the other hand, there can be some corner cases. May be let's be constructive and test them, instead of just speculating about what can happen and what cannot ? A small analogy: you can speculate that tomorrow, when you come out of your home, a brick can fell from the roof and kill you. Now what ? Don't ever come out of house ? Wear builder's helmet ? :) To me current situation looks non-constructive. You say: "Current implementation works, new implementation theoretically may fail (because it's new), so we must not change the code". Is it correct developer's approach ? Yes, changes sometimes introduce bugs, that's OK. Doesn't this mean that we just need to add some tests ? Can anyone (opponents) give ideas on what exactly needs to be tested ? I can extend make's test suite then. -- С уважением, Pavel mailto:pavel_fe...@mail.ru _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
