Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Roland Mainz wrote on Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:15PM CEST: > > Ok... but "dolt" may been to be adopted to other compilers (like Sun > > Workshop/Forte/Studio, icc etc.) and then it will be a bit more than the > > 10 lines (and adopting it for other POSIX-like shells may be nice, too - > > Josh measured against Libtool 1.5.x. Libtool 2.2.2 has a lot less > overhead in compile mode than 1.5.x, see the numbers Ross posted, and > the list archive of libtool-patches for several improvements including > numbers; and we are currently working on improving things a bit more, > targeting improvements that help all shells which support XSI > extensions (and falling back to the slow code for other shells).
What do you mean by "XSI extensions" ? BTW: One thing which could be improved in both "libtool" and "dolt" (beyond the stuff listed in http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/shell/shellstyle/) would be to get rid of the "echo" h*ll - almost every version of Unix/Linux and shell has it's own version of "echo" (Solaris even has multiple one: /usr/bin/echo, /usr/ucb/echo, /usr/gnu/echo and the { bash, Bourne, csh, ksh88, ksh93, zsh } builtin version of "echo" - all of them with slightly different behaviour). A more portable solution would be to use the "printf" command (which is usually a shell builtin (at lest in bash+ksh93's case)) which is part of the POSIX standard (the POSIX people were aware of the "echo" h*ll since a long time and choose to create a new utilty than trying to fight each and every OS+shell vendor/author... :-) ) and therefore has guranteed behaviour for quoting, backslashes etc. (and avoids undesired sideeffects when a variable contains backslashes, e.g. $ foo="\a chicken" ; echo "$foo" # will result in some OS/shell-specific string while $ foo="\a chicken" ; printf "%s\n" "$foo" # will precisely print "\achicken"). > While the multi-thousand line script can't get as fast as dolt -- after > all, dolt isn't portable to non-bash, Well, I can provide patches to make it at least compatible to all POSIX compatible shells (AFAIK that would only require minor adjustments...). > also there's functionality that > libtool compile mode offers that dolt doesn't -- we expect compile mode > to become fast enough that the overhead shouldn't be a big problem for > practical use, and we expect that to come without the need for users to > change their configure.ac scripts at all. > > Meanwhile, updating to 2.2.2 would be a good idea, its link mode has > also become considerably faster than 1.5.x at least for some use cases. > We would appreciate bug reports for particular remaining performance > bottlenecks. Question for both "dolt" and "libtool" developers: Where should I send bug reports/patches to ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
