From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Compiling GCC
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 07:57:03 +0200
Organization: NetVision Israel	
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990926075514.17688C-100000@is>
References: <B0000102732 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv> <B0000102979 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 938325348 20430 199.203.121.2 (26 Sep 1999 05:55:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 1999 05:55:48 GMT
X-Sender: eliz AT is
In-Reply-To: <B0000102979@stargate.astr.lu.lv> 
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I would agree that //x/foo is not nice idea, but I also think that 
> dependence of results on directory name (results are different for
> c:/tmp/x/   and   c:/tmp/xxxxxxxx/  shows that we perhaps have a bug

What I wanted to point out was that it might be not a bug in the usual 
sense, but rather some side-effect of the special hacks that Bash 1.14.7 
does to avoid interpreting Sed scripts as file names in the //x/foo 
format.  I agree that from the user's point of view it is still a bug.