RE: GMAKE 3.81 versus 3.80

On 10 September 2007 09:17, Bhaskar G wrote:

> gmake 3.81 compiled on windows v/s gmake 3.80 compiler on windows

> I have one problem using gmake 3.81. I have a compiler command line
which

> is very big. 

> 

> I dont get any error if I run the command as is. If I try to store
this

> command by doing an echo and redirecting it to a filename then i get
any

> error something like: 

> Syntax error: Unterminated quoted string

&gt; gmake.exe: *** <filename>

&gt; 

> The same code works fine if I run gmake 3.80 built for windows.

  There were some changes in quoting/escaping between 3.80 and 3.81
IIRC;

check the NEWS file.  If you can cut down your makefile to a simple
testcase,

post it here and we'll see if we can figure out what the relevant change
is.

> Any Idea how to reconfigure 3.81 to behave as 3.80

  Well, if you want the *exact* same behaviour, use 3.80 instead of
3.81.

    cheers,

      DaveK

-- 

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

> Cc: help-makegnu.org
> From: Bhaskar G <bhaskar.gnxp.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:48:55 +0530
> 
> This is the exact command line that I am using. If I
remove the echo (in 
> bold) part from the command then the command succeeds.

Your command is more than 19K characters, it is dangerously
close to
where you could hit the limit of the shell and/or the OS.

> /cygdrive/e/mvcyg4.0/bin/sh: -c: line 1: unexpected EOF
while looking for 
> matching `''

cygdrive?  Are you using Cygwin programs (like Bash and GCC)
with a
native Windows build of Make 3.81?  Or is that a Cygwin
build of Make?

If the former, I strongly suggest not to mix Cygwin and
non-Cygwin
programs, as they are subtly incompatible, especially in
marginal
situations such as this one.

If the latter, then this could be a known issue with Cygwin,
so I'd
suggest to post this to the Cygwin mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Help-make mailing list
Help-makegnu.org
http:
//lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make

RE: GMAKE 3.81 versus 3.80

Thread: RE: GMAKE 3.81 versus 3.80