Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!

To: tech-toolchain%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
From: christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 12:24:58 -0000 (UTC)

In article <20190401040634.GA9409%netbsd.org@localhost>,
David Holland  <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:45:39AM -0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > I added :sh for compatibility. It is the same reason we support include
> > and .include etc.
>
>Really? Which other make has :sh? I thought colon-modifiers in other
>makes were pretty much limited to the suffix transform one...

Sorry I meant $(shell ...)

christos

References:
- bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
  - From: Edgar Fuß
- Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
  - From: David Holland
- Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
  - From: Christos Zoulas
- Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
  - From: David Holland

Prev by Date: unmodified binutils fails on alpha
Next by Date: Re: unmodified binutils fails on alpha
Previous by Thread: Re: bmake: :sh vs :!cmd!
Next by Thread: unmodified binutils fails on alpha
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index