delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:08:11 +0300 |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
Sender: | halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il |
To: | lauras AT softhome DOT net |
Message-Id: | <6436-Fri29Jun2001200811+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> |
X-Mailer: | Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <20010629174913.C659@lauras.lt> |
Subject: | Re: bash 2.04 build failure? |
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> <20010629174913 DOT C659 AT lauras DOT lt> |
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 |
> From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:49:13 +0200 > > > 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. It looks like Bash should generally prefer scripts to programs, and .exe programs to raw COFF programs. Is that true?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |