X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200303181124.MAA03802@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: elefunt results
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:45 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <3405-Tue18Mar2003130405+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Mar 18, 2003 01:04:06 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

Eli said:
> > 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?

1. A file name like "run_me" isn't relative, is it?

2. If it is considered as relative and what you say is correct, then
bash must be broken. It can't be a good idea to force current
directory into the PATH. And as first entry too.

3. My bash can be rather old, so that might be why I get different
results from Richard and what you say, if this has been changed over
different bash releases. (I can't check the release version right
now.)


Right,

						MartinS