[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8) |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:05:40 +0200 |
> I think we agree that autoconf is not at fault here.
Yes, and neither is the shell. It is libtool who pollutes the name space.
However, I'll stress once more another lesson that you can take home. You wrote:
> For years, I've been using $(ECHO) in Makefile.am's with an
> AC_CHECK_PROG([ECHO], echo, echo)
This is not necessary. You can just use echo, as it is a builtin and
will be universally available; the only problem, which your technique
doesn't solve anyway, is that it may not work when the argument
contains backslashes or starts with a dash.
In order to avoid rewriting your makefiles, just do
AC_SUBST([ECHO], [echo])
for the time being.
Paolo
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/15
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Peter O'Gorman, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), David Fang, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8),
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8), Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/08/17