Re: GNU make 4.2 (and 4.2.1) failing due to length of command-line

[Adrian Muresan]

Not sure if this is the appropriate avenue for this question: 

why don't we use a website like stackoverflow or some other forum-based site 
for these communications? 
Wouldn't it be easier for people to find stuff? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:54:35 -0400
>> 
>>> On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 20:36 +0000, Adrian Muresan wrote:
>>> Does batch_mode_shell = 1 mean that it always uses the sh.exe instead
>>> of Windows.cmd?
>> 
>> No.  It's clear that make is not using Windows command.com, because the
>> script you're running is a POSIX shell script, not a command.com batch
>> script.  If you tried to enter those commands into your command.com
>> prompt you'd get a syntax error.
>> 
>> What that flag means (as I understand it: I'm not that familiar with
>> this aspect of Windows support) is that make will never try to invoke
>> the shell directly passing the recipe to be run on the command line.
>> 
>> Instead it is being forced to always write the recipe to a temporary
>> file ("batch file") on your disk and invoke the shell such that it runs
>> the recipe in the temporary file.
> 
> Yes, that's true.  As an aside, the Windows shell is cmd.exe, not
> command.com, and Make uses cmd.exe if either (a) the Makefile requires
> that with the "SHELL =" command, or (b) it cannot find any sh.exe on
> PATH.