From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 Message-ID: <86r69mgig9.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <36366a980807101702r5677d096g8e62ef5b3e278868@mail.gmail.com> <87k5fph5rh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20080713214648.GB1076@muc.de> <20080714195651.GF3445@muc.de> <487C5FA3.4070603@emf.net> <87zloggji9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878wvxxkn6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ej5oz4pb.fsf@saeurebad.de> <87vdyzxype.fsf@saeurebad.de> <871w1njq32.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iquzxgtk.fsf@saeurebad.de> <4884CFEF.8040404@gmail.com> <87ej5nxew2.fsf@saeurebad.de> <85y73u96jl.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216733163 4230 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2008 13:26:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 22 15:26:50 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KLHsg-0000nA-SN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:26:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56272 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLHrn-0007z8-FU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:25:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLHr8-0007SQ-N3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLHr7-0007Qu-72 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48759 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLHr6-0007Qk-WE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:24:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.quinscape.de ([212.29.44.217]:47448) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLHr6-0005BL-Gv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:24:40 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 28266 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2008 13:24:39 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by quinx.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Jul 2008 13:24:38 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6D2CFE1E79; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:13:16 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.3-2; AVE: 7.8.1.11; VDF: 7.0.5.151; host: quinx) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:101187 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Cc: Johannes Weiner , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:11:26 +0200 >> >> There is no reliable way to quote stuff you want to pass into a "system" >> call. > > Of course, there is. Assuming you know what shell will interpret the > arguments, that is. Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also differently on different versions of Windows. So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? >> In fact, it is not even guaranteed that calling "exec" will not mesh >> up arguments or add or remove quoting. > > `exec' is not a Windows system call. Squeezing one OS into emulation > of another should be expected to be problematic. > >> There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work >> reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make >> it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". > > Only because the surrounding code expects a Posix-compliant set of > functions and syscalls. It was not written with portability in mind > from the ground up. I often doubt it was written with anything in mind. As it stands, it is a half-baked pseudo-Posix wrappery about CP/M calling conventions. When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead that I can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often "I wish I would have thought of that". -- David Kastrup