Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:20:08 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: dj AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <7704-Thu28Jun2001222008+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com In-reply-to: <200106281712.NAA11355@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:12:26 -0400) Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure? References: <7263-Thu28Jun2001195324+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <200106281712 DOT NAA11355 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> 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 > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:12:26 -0400 > From: DJ Delorie > > > DJ, what does the Cygwin port of Bash do? Or, rather, what does the > > Cygwin DLL's routines do when Bash invokes them to run `foo'? Do they > > search for extensions, and if so, for which ones? > > If you directly spawn an executable, the search order is this: > > .exe > > .com > .cmd > .bat > .dll > > It doesn't seem to check if the file already has a "suffix" but with > long file names, you can't just depend on the presence of a dot to > indicate a suffix. Sounds a lot like what we do. Should we change that to match this more closely?