Hello Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:28:16PM CEST: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 9/14/2006 5:08 AM: > > * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:26:53PM CEST: [ exec -a ] > > > > I've had that thought before. One downside is that many developers > > may not be exposed to the problem at all, so may not notice the issue > > and the need to work around it for systems with less capable shells. > > > > It's a close call. A portable solution would certainly be preferable. > > Could we at least add a spy in the configure script that sees what > platforms out there in current use do not have a shell capable of changing > argv[0]? bash has 'exec -a name command', zsh has 'ARGV0=name command', > but I didn't find anything in my perusal of 'man pdksh'.
AFAIK those are more or less the only shells to provide this functionality. Neither dash (Debian ash), Solaris sh, HP-UX sh, AIX sh (IIRC), or other traditional shells do. So no, I don't see much benefit a spy would have. > Or we could always convert the libtool wrapper to a C program, and use > execl ourselves rather than relying on shell scripting for the > wrapper. Currently the wrapper is used not only for adjusting the environment a bit, but also to provide information for other libtool queries, relink and such. An executable wrapper would - have to provide all of this functionality, - be portable (not only to mingw and cygwin), - somehow offer a way to show transparently what is being done (nothing beats looking at the shell script in case you're trying to find out why something broke, or running it with `sh -x'). I'm not saying it cannot be done; but it's a bit of work. One could also ponder the double route: a shell plus a binary wrapper, similarly to the w32 case. May be much less work (and would provide for a smoother upgrade path towards a fully binary wrapper). Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
