Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:25:56AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think the solution which uses functions to implement dependencies is
> > much more practical.
>
> Fair enough. But why not support parallelism while you're at it?
> This can be done in the shell, albeit less elegantly than in 'make'.
I'm not sure I know how to do it. But that's not the main reason.
I think that adding parallelism might bring additional problems, which
could be hard to debug. For example: make has a limit on the number of
processes; in shell, you probably have to count the number of processes
yourself.
> > Current sources (configure.ac) will be usable without any change.
>
> That would be nice, yes.
I am somehow afraid that attempts to parallelize might bring problems
with backward compatibility.
Well, on a second thought, you are probably right, paralellism in the
next thing to do. I just don't plan to do it.
Thanks,
Stepan
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
