X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=UL/y9gteBYEm0AOX r61HeuP4FYv9qHJ2nArFfcWzj+nuxq+9eU71zKRNHocwfO9HEjRbaCpbKSb1TDrq ZNcRq0iTZhjGwUOPkAtfttY+vlJ319CJ3UztB30IflALI60TJV5N2gyiScMmNZCx 0dGftdzjpeuATiN9wF1ob5+ksUs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=IT1ppPlGet9gmYDCxurbnX kF8cM=; b=OB9M9z2hi5m+0ggiqdbDDn+H+jaanrEUtwMo51SGw9qvYFdBOvjSQK NJn9F+izn7mL9GRA/vU9J/TR3YMyPcah5ng4MPLQaMaBPBQl5k7WyuhPrwZ9+F4k RBuj4VD+stOyiIigRmXfu/OWq3N1rLvyP/dLWA16CbdlwG3LCDwgw= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: csmail.cs.umass.edu Message-ID: <53186D47.1030709@cs.umass.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 07:42:47 -0500 From: Eliot Moss Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: bash adds dot to $PATH (was: Re: $PATH contains dot but unclear where it comes from) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes If it is of any use, the versions I have installed, bash/sh 4.1.10(4), have the same length and differ in two byte positions, by one bit in each case. These differences may just reflect the different name or a slightly different time at which the .exe was constructed as part of a build process. I suspect that bash is acting differently based on the name via which it was called and that the executable is really the same in both cases. On a true linux system they might be the same file, accessed via a hard link. The behavioral difference presumably could be traced down in the source code to bash. I have no idea how hard or subtle that may be. It might be a question that upstream maintainers could answer. I suppose it could still be some kind of very subtle interaction between bash/sh and cygwin, but you'd need to narrow down to particular library or system calls. I can't recall if you have tried using strace to trace system calls of the two invocations to see if you can find a difference there. I am not sure what you would look for or if it would even show up in a syscall trace ... Regards -- Eliot -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple