Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:34:17 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2593-Tue18Mar2003143417+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200303181124.MAA03802@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:45 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: elefunt results
References:  <200303181124 DOT MAA03802 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
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

> From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:24:45 +0100 (MET)
> 
> 1. A file name like "run_me" isn't relative, is it?

Yes, it is.  It's relative to the current working directory.

> 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.

Then perhaps Bash searches the PATH in its own code and only passes a
fully-qualified file name to __spawnve.

FWIW, I think it's better to use an explicit "./foo" paradigm than
fiddle with the value of PATH in the Makefile.