[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fallback-echo, finding a suitable $ECHO

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: fallback-echo, finding a suitable $ECHO
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:12:19 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET:
> On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> 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.


> > 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
> > }

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]