> After a look through the sources it seems that > AS_EXECUTABLE_P should use both "test -f" and > "test -x" on systems that support it, and "test -f" > otherwise (DOS, Win, ...) Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that 'test -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of this finding directories (then again, I don't have . in my path). I agree this is a serious problem; even with no '.' in the PATH, someone could have a directory 'gcc' on the path somewhere, so gcc wouldn't be found. I'll need to think long and hard to come up with a portable way to have this test work on DOS without breaking on Unices... *sigh*
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Gary V. Vaughan
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Richard Dawe
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Earnie Boyd
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva