Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-10 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 9, 2003, Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandre == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexandre the *_OBJECT definitions assume the absence of shell-active Alexandre characters in filenames, which is probably a safe Alexandre assumption for Makefiles. It isn't

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-09 Thread Tom Tromey
Alexandre == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexandre the *_OBJECT definitions assume the absence of shell-active Alexandre characters in filenames, which is probably a safe Alexandre assumption for Makefiles. It isn't unreasonable for a Java .class file's name to contain $. libgcj

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-04 Thread Mohan Embar
Hi Alexandre, I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the shell script. For starters, it fails to support all of libtool's configure-time options, such as --disable-static, --disable-shared, --with-pic, as well as their per-compilation equivalent command-line flags. I

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-03 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 3, 2003, Mohan Embar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to see how much faster the libgcj build would go if I took libtool out of the picture for some of the pieces. I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the shell script. For starters, it fails to support all of