From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10953 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 17:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10916 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 17:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 17:44:52 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id B189920766; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:43:27 -0500 (EST) To: Felix Lee Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Use program_transform_name correctly References: <20031007224854.15D3B158F81@kanga.canids.net> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20031007224854.15D3B158F81@kanga.canids.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 Felix Lee writes: > Jim Blandy : > > ! t='$(program_transform_name)'; echo runtest | sed -e '' $$t; \ > > it looks to me like this is written for a program_transform_name > that's a concatenated list of -e options. the -e '' will keep > sed from complaining if program_transform_name is null. > > I remember at some point in the past, sometimes > program_transform_name was a semicolon-separated list of sed > commands, sometimes it was a list of sed -e options. Don't know > if it's consistent now. All right --- that at least explains what the intent was. However, GNU sed and the POSIX spec now both agree that, if a -e option is present, any additional arguments are filenames, not scripts. So this is definitely broken.