Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
Well, *should* we have a built-in "test"? I gather the original ash didn't
have it due to the KIS principle. But if it speeds things up considerably,
it's not much of a bloat, is it? I'd volunteer to write it.
Unfortunately, the only way to tell for sure would
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:00:07PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
Well, *should* we have a built-in "test"? I gather the original ash didn't
have it due to the KIS principle. But if it speeds things up considerably,
it's not much of a bloat, is it? I'd volunteer to
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:55:19PM +, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
Unfortunately, the only way to tell for sure would be to do a couple
make worlds with the current sh, then do some with super-sh with the
built in 'test'.
You are right. I will do it, and report the results.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:00:07 -0700, Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
Well, *should* we have a built-in "test"? I gather the original ash didn't
have it due to the KIS principle. But if it speeds things up considerably,
it's not much of a bloat, is it? I'd volunteer
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the ${MAKE_SHELL} does,
for me, result in about 10% faster make world time, and speeds port
Anatoly Vorobey:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the ${MAKE_SHELL} does,
for me, result in about 10% faster make world time,
Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Ben Smithurst wrote:
why allow csh in the Makefile when the setting of DEFSHELL it results in
will not compile? Have I missed something?
It's there to allow you attempt to shoot yourself in the foot more safely.
Too much shooting,
Some weeks ago, I made a small modification to make(1) so that it could
be built to use a different shell for its work. It already seemed to
have the idea at least partially thought out and in the code, so it was
a naturally easy thing to finish implementing. The code will remain
exactly the
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
Some weeks ago, I made a small modification to make(1) so that it could
be built to use a different shell for its work. It already seemed to
have the idea at least partially thought out and in the code, so it was
a naturally easy thing
I have been using it as well (with pdksh) for quite some time. I haven't
compared speed, but it certainly hasn't broken anything.
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
Some weeks ago, I made a small modification to make(1) so that it could
be
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
in general, it's a good idea, but the problem, is, it gives a lot more
freedom without any real gain. It only allows one to write Makefiles that
use your private choice of shell, and you can do anything you want, I
think, as it is now.
That's not the
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
in general, it's a good idea, but the problem, is, it gives a lot more
freedom without any real gain. It only allows one to write Makefiles that
use your private choice of shell, and you can
Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
+.if ${MAKE_SHELL} == "csh"
+CFLAGS+= -DDEFSHELL=0
...
+#if DEFSHELL == 1
(void) execv("/bin/sh", args);
+#elif DEFSHELL == 2
+ (void) execv("/bin/ksh", args);
+#else
+#error "DEFSHELL must be 1 or 2."
+#endif
why allow csh in the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Ben Smithurst wrote:
why allow csh in the Makefile when the setting of DEFSHELL it results in
will not compile? Have I missed something?
It's there to allow you attempt to shoot yourself in the foot more safely.
Too much shooting, still?
--
Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL
14 matches
Mail list logo
