Re: HAVE_PCC=yes

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:13AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
 > > Given that one of the other things that's changed since then is that
 > > the shell has become standardized, we could probably teach make to
 > > examine the commands more carefully (it already examines them some)
 > > and fork a new shell for any line that contains state-altering shell
 > > builtins.
 > 
 > Which, of course, breaks the "use the shell of your choice" paradigm
 > even further, since make will break even more severely if your shell's
 > semantics aren't exactly the One True Approved Shell's.  (Odd, for a
 > time when there are even more choices of shell appearing.)

Are there? The only recent new ones I've heard about in a while are
still sh clones.

 > > I have the vague impression from reading old pmake docs that someone
 > > intended it to be e.g. possible to use it with csh instead of sh...
 > 
 > Well, sure.  The shell is just another program, right?  So you can use
 > some other one if you prefer, right?

Makefile recipes are specifically sh scripts and always have been. It
is specious generality. Besides, since if you want to use something
else you have to declare it (assuming that still works, which I doubt)
that step can easily disable any sh-specific knowledge.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost