[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #60312 (project make): I do have it: $ which sh /usr/bin/sh but make seems to be calling echo.exe directly. Extracts from "strace make -f tm": 0 0 [main] echo (7896) ** 155 155 [main] echo (7896) Program nam

[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #60312 (project make): And one more thing, this is the respective line output by make -d: CreateProcess(C:\msys64\usr\bin\echo.exe,echo \"xx\",...) I don't know if those backslashes are just added by the log routine or are actually sent by make to echo (in which case,

[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #60312 (project make): So you have the MSYS `bin` directory on your PATH... Don't do that, native Windows programs and MSYS don't mix well. ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #60312 (project make): As your debug output shows, Make is escaping the quote, not what's after the quote. Make leaves the quotes there because your command included the quotes. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #60312 (project make): Yeah, well. But if it assumes the invoked program can interpret "backslash double quote" in the command line, why can't it also assume that it can understand "single quote quoting" and not change one into the other? Because MSYS's echo works finely

[bug #60312] echo replaces double quote with backslash

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #60312 (project make): The native Windows build of GNU Make basically assumes the behavior of native programs wrt quotes and their escaping. There's nothing wrong with MSYS `echo`, but if you want to use MSYS, you are well advised to use an MSYS build of Make as well.

[bug #60297] optimize autodeps

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #60297 (project make): I haven't looked at the patches but one thing to note is that we already have a target which is supposed to do what your .NOTINTERMEDIATE target does, as I understand it that's the same thing .SECONDARY is supposed to do. The problem with .SECONDAR

Intermediate file removal ... considered harmful??

I've been thinking about this for a while and Dmitry's recent Savannah proposal caused me to decide to post it. Is there any point, these days, in automatically removing intermediate files in GNU make? Back in the day when disk was expensive I suppose I can see where automatically removing unnece