From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl. Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:45:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200901020207.30359.rob@landley.net> <200901021026.37905.a.miskiewicz@gmail.com> <20090102094934.GB17841@infradead.org> <495DE995.1070002@opensde.org> <496F3344.9060104@draigBrady.com> <20090115185224.GB5440@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090115185224.GB5440@shareable.org> (Jamie Lokier's message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:52:24 +0000") Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Jamie Lokier Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady , =?iso-8859-1?Q?M?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Jamie Lokier writes: > P=E1draig Brady wrote: >> > The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see >> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/xcu_chap02= =2Ehtml#tag_02_06_04 >> >=20 >> > Bash supports $[ ... ] as an alternate syntax for the same thing. >> > Perhaps you were thinking of that. >>=20 >> I think the misconception that $(( ... )) is a bashism is caused by >> the wrong highlighting defaults chosen by vim. > > I think the misconception is because traditional unix bourne shells > don't implement that construct. I just tried it on a few machines, > and it failed on 4 of them. Admittedly, the only up to date one is > running Solaris 10; the others are older unixes that you're unlikely > to build Linux on. On Solaris, /usr/xpg4/bin/sh is usually a POSIX-compliant shell. I don't know how long it has been there. --=20 M=E5ns Rullg=E5rd mans@mansr.com