Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:04:06 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<3405-Tue18Mar2003130405+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<200303181043.LAA03752@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:11 +0100 (MET))
Subject:	Re: elefunt results
References:	<200303181043 DOT LAA03752 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
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: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:43:11 +0100 (MET)
> 
> Just to verify I'm not blind or something: you do not have . in the
> PATH, right?
> 
> If you make some little program in tmp/ say silly.exe and go there and
> type "silly" and "silly.exe" it says command not found, right?
> 
> If not, then it looks like your bash is broken... (Unlikely.)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't Bash call __spawnve to run
a program whose name doesn't constitute a full path to the executable
file?  If it does, isn't it true that our __spawnve _always_ searches
the current directory first for relative file names?

- Raw text -