From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29303 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 10:28:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 29295 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2012 10:28:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:28:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C442BB458; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bYRbMP16Of91; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE532BB456; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B475A145615; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:28:13 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.4 --with-python doesn't like d:/foo/bar Message-ID: <20120127102813.GZ31383@adacore.com> References: <20120127052515.GW31383@adacore.com> <83fwf1zdq3.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83fwf1zdq3.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00941.txt.bz2 > This is a standard way of Autoconf's catering to DOS and Windows > platforms. You can see it at work elsewhere in the configure script, > because it's part of AC_PROG_PATH. In fact, you can find it just a > few lines below the test that failed. You're right. I wasn't thinking clearly in the morning. For some reason, I was seeing both expressions as equivalent, when clearly they are not! So your proposed change is on the table instead. -- Joel