Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:12:11 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<8011-Fri10Jan2003221210+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
In-reply-to:	<1042101053.4734.8.camel@leeloo> (message from Tim Van Holder on
	09 Jan 2003 09:30:53 +0100)
Subject:	Re: m4 port: return program name as 'm4' not '/some/path/m4.exe'
	[PATCH]
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1030109075038 DOT 16256B-100000 AT is> <1042101053 DOT 4734 DOT 8 DOT camel AT leeloo>
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: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: 09 Jan 2003 09:30:53 +0100
> 
> > > but Tim van
> > > Holder (hi Tim) told me the other day that it'll find directories called "foo"
> > > in the path as well.
> > 
> > Isn't that a bug?  Does that happen on Unix and GNU/Linux systems as 
> > well.
> 
> I was talking about Linux/Unix systems, where directories have the
> 'executable' bit set

Yes, I understand.  I asked whether "test -x" _should_ find
directories or only executable programs.

> I don't know if this Unixism is simulated by our test -x

Of course, we do: our `stat' returns the executable bit set for
directories.

- Raw text -