Thomas Schwinge <tschwi...@baylibre.com> writes: > Hi Sam!
Hi! > > On 2024-12-06T09:34:32+0000, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> The script has #!/bin/sh shebang (and hence must have POSIX shell >> compatibility), but the patch introduces uses of the 'local' keyword >> which isn't in POSIX. >> >> While many shells do have the 'local' keyword, its behaviour isn't >> portable across those either, which is why it's likely it'll never >> be added to POSIX :( > > Right, but I intentionally picked the form that I thought was supported > by all reasonable '/bin/sh's: 'local [name]', without any further > adornement. For example, per <https://mywiki.wooledge.org/Bashism>: > > | 'local' is mandated by the LSB and Debian policy specifications, though > only the 'local varname' (not 'local var=value') syntax is specified. > > Portable, reliable shell programming is a nice idea, but then, reality > check... Yeah, that's fair enough. (I just noticed by chance as I was looking at my other issue; I didn't hit an actual problem with this at all.) > > (Don't ask me how much time I already spent on this simple script, to get > it into its current form -- and I'd consider myself well-versed in shell > programming...) > > I was inclined to just rewrite it in Python, what do you think? In my > opinion, a GCC-build-time Python dependency is not a problem for > '--target=nvptx-none', as that one's not in the bootstrapping chain? I think that should be fine and far less error prone. Certainly not a problem for us and I can't imagine it is for the others. > > > Grüße > Thomas thanks, sam
