Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:01:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: __dosexec_find_on_path question
In-Reply-To: <39345E39.31070.44E4CF@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000531095944.8817M@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 31 May 2000, Mark E. wrote:

> !   { ".ksh", script_exec, INTERP_FLAG_SKIP_SEARCH},
> !   { ".pl", script_exec, INTERP_FLAG_SKIP_SEARCH},   /* Perl */
> !   { ".sed", script_exec, INTERP_FLAG_SKIP_SEARCH},
>     { "",     go32_exec },
>     { 0,      script_exec },  /* every extension not mentioned above calls it */
>     { 0,      0 },

Doesn't GCC print a warning about incomplete initialization in the last 3 
lines?  Even if it doesn't, I think we should initialize the flags to 
zero explicitly, like you did with the first few entries.

Other than that, I have no objections.