[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Don't punish non-DJGPP/non-Windows platforms..., rev. 3 [PATCH]
From: |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz |
Subject: |
Re: Don't punish non-DJGPP/non-Windows platforms..., rev. 3 [PATCH] |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Apr 2003 23:35:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) |
>>> "Richard" == Richard Dawe <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
Richard> Let me know if this is OK and I will commit it, when I
Richard> get a CVS account at sources.redhat.com.
OK, with the change below
[...]
Richard> +# The amount we should wait after modifying files depends on the
platform.
Richard> +# On Windows '95, '98 and ME, files modifications have 2-seconds
Richard> +# granularity and can be up to 3 seconds in the future w.r.t. the
Richard> +# system clock. When it is important to ensure one file is older
Richard> +# than another we wait at least 5 seconds between creations.
Richard> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([how many seconds we should wait after modifying a
file])
Richard> +case $build in
Richard> + *-pc-msdosdjgpp) result=5;;
Richard> + *) result=2;;
Richard> +esac
Richard> +AC_SUBST([MODIFICATION_DELAY], [$result])
Richard> AC_MSG_RESULT([$result])
It's less armored, but it's still autotankish. Please strip out
the AC_MSG_CHECKING and AC_MSG_RESULT for the reason I gave in
my previous message. This is not a check. The check was done
AC_CANONICAL_BUILD and you are just exploiting its result.
You might as well rename $result as $MODIFICATION_DELAY, BTW.
[...]
Sorry for the slow throughput and for being a pest. I expect to
have more time next week. (And I'm happy to see people willing
to help even if that might not sound so from my wording.)
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz