Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:32:23 -0500 (CDT)
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Michel Briand wrote: >> >> Honestly I wanted to do two optimizations. >> >> Firstly, I've tested /bin/dash and seen that it's much faster >> than /bin/bash on my normal sized project. >> ->> is it possible to choose the shell in autogen ? That way users do >> not have to bother to call configure like this ? > >If you did that then the configure script would likely only work on >your system. If it only runs on your system, what's the point? > You don't see my point. In autogen I want to have a way to select a different shell (for configure & libtool). I'm not saying that I'll choose a shell that fails to run the tools or that I'll not ask the user for the best shell available... Furthermore you seems to indicate that Dash would not run configure ? Should autoconf find the correct sed program for example (@SED@), it could also find the best shell available, isn't it ? >> Secondly, I wanted to optimize the way gcc is called ? Why does libtool >> need to create a shell snippet for all source files ? A Makefile that >> simply calls gcc for each source file is much much faster ;)))) > >Libtool is for portably creating libraries. If you only plan to >create libraries that work on your own computer, then you can >hard-code everything in a Makefile and skip using libtool. > Sure. No comment. >Regardless, libtool 2.2 and latter has been shown to have minimal >impact on build times. > Noted. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
