[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8) |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:11:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6 |
On 08/15/10 21:26, David Fang wrote:
> I'm desperate enough to use sed to patch config.status after it's been
> generated:
If you're that desperate, you're desperate enough to use bash
instead of the broken Darwin shell, no?
To others:
Would it be appropriate to patch Autoconf to generate a 'configure'
that rejects that implementation of 'echo', if it discovers the bug?
> ECHO='printf %s\n'
> with
> ECHO='echo'
> to get the old behavior.
Wouldn't it be more-reliable to double the backslash? Urgh.
Perhaps Autoconf could fall back on ECHO='printf %s\\n' if
it discovers the bug. (Make that a Double Urgh.)
- echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8),
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Eric Blake, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Eric Blake, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Peter O'Gorman, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16