From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:49:13 +0200
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Message-ID:	<20010629174913.C659@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<3395-Wed20Jun2001200621+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B3890D8 DOT 12023 DOT 1A6E91 AT localhost> <20010628184544 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <20010629142627 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <3395-Fri29Jun2001175316+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3395-Fri29Jun2001175316+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.18i
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> On second thought, I don't think I understand the problem in this case
> and why does moving conftest out of the way solves it: running both
> foo and foo.exe should have produced the same effect in this case,
> since they are both the same program.  Could you explain why you think
> it fails?

It runs both ways, but in extensionless case Bash thinks it didn't. Why?
Well, there I agree that my analysis was to shallow. But one thing is clear -
extensionless executable confuses bash, while the other one doesn't.

> (I also think you meant hello, not conftest.)

Whatever - hello was from yesterday's debugging session, conftest is 
from today. 

> Also, I thought you wanted the extensionless program toi run at the
> expense of the one with extension, no?  

Yes...

> At least I think Tim and Mark
> wanted that.  But you seem to say that running the extensionless
> program is harmful in this case.
 
...and yes, but the later is quite clear fact. There should be another
reason, of course, and some additional debugging won't harm.

Laurynas

- Raw text -