* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET: > On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo? > > Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either. I don't > recall exactly which systems required --fallback-echo, but I do recall > it was added for a very good reason, given how disgusting it is :-) > > Since we've now moved on to better systems, supporting shell functions > and all, we might as well give libtool a new try without this gunk and > see how it goes. Failing that, a shell function might be good enough, > although the fact that not even bash gets it right in some cases > doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling about this construct :-)
Oh, I should have written > > : # work around old bash bug , and the bug is really independent of the eval (halts the script if the last cmd in a function returns nonzero, plus `set -e' is in effect). On second thought, maybe I don't mind if it really halts then -- let's just remove the workaround. Thanks, Ralf > > func_fallback_echo () > > { > > # Without the eval, Bourne shells create the here doc at definition > > time. > > eval 'cat <<_LT_EOF > > $* > > _LT_EOF > > ' > > : # work around bash bug > > } _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool