> From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:55:14 -0400 > > On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 16:25 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > If they work that would be my preference, rather than adding > > > another variable. > > > > Agreed. If you can test that, that'd be great. > > I tried it and it worked with Visual Studio (to use forward-slashes in > the source file name).
OK, the changeset I pushed uses forward slashes. > > Do you want to keep the UMASK macro, or should we just call 'umask' > > under the HAVE_UMASK condition? > > I don't see any point in the UMASK macro if we're going to check > HAVE_UMASK anyway. Maybe, though, it would be nicer to create a dummy > umask() function in misc.c if HAVE_UMASK is not defined? That would > avoid adding ifdefs in the code itself. Done. It turns out MinGW does have 'umask', so I added HAVE_UMASK to config.h.W32.template under __MINGW32__. The no-op function is probably for MSVC? and maybe VMS? > > I don't remember why we are doing this, the code has been there since > > 2005. Maybe so that the "Entering" and "Leaving" messages looked > > better? seeing "make.exe[2]:" there is quite ugly. > > True. Well, no one has complained so I don't see any point in changing > it. Fixing this in the test suite, if we wanted to, is completely > trivial we just need to fix the MAKE substitution in one place in the > framework. Can you tell me how? That would remove quite a few failures from the tests. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
