[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.
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
> > }