From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:22:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: __dosexec_find_on_path question
Message-ID: <3934E7C8.26244.7A952@localhost>
References: <39345E39 DOT 31070 DOT 44E4CF AT localhost>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000531095944.8817M@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> 
> 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.

I missed that, thanks. And I didn't get a warning. Yet when I tried to use 
constant integers (static const inst interp_flag_skip_search = 1), gcc told 
me the initializer wasn't constant.

Does the same thing need to be done to __dosexec_find_on_path?