Hi, On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Ralf Wildenhues<[email protected]> wrote: > > * Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:51:29AM CEST: >> Or does it require a more complex function body, to show the difference >> where the subshell avoids the crash? At any rate, we'll need to >> characterize exactly what your shell's bug is. > > Yes. Rugxulo or Reuben, can you please post a link to the package > that's failing? Thanks.
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/zile/zile-2.3.10.tar.gz >>> However, the whole point of using 'return $ac_retval' without a subshell >>> is to avoid forking, and catering to bash 2.04 brokenness (if it is indeed >>> a bash bug fixed for 2.05a, as I suspect) is a step backwards. >> >> >> You really think that this will slow everything down? Have you tested >> it on your machine? (hint hint) :-) >> >> Yes I have tested it on cygwin, and yes it made a difference, which is why >> we committed the patch in the first place. Seriously - the cost of a >> subshell is VERY measurable, and doing anything to avoid a subshell will >> have NOTICEABLE differences in the running time of a configure script. Cygwin doesn't count as it's slow anyways, already emulating a lot of stuff (e.g. fork) because Windows isn't POSIX friendly. Please consider trying again on a real *nix (Linux, presumably), and tell me if it takes more than a few secs extra, if even. > We could use as_fn_set_status everywhere, and only define that to > use a subshell if we detect 2.05a. That shouldn't penalize users of > non-broken shells so much. (Of course, this is pretty vague given > that we don't know what exactly the bug is.) Both DJGPP ports of Bash 2.04 and 2.05b have this issue. GNU bash, version 2.04.7(1)-release (i386-pc-msdosdjgpp) GNU bash, version 2.05b.0(1)-release (i386-pc-msdosdjgpp) Yes, it is vague, but I don't know what would be causing this either.
