On 12/18/2011 06:33 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> Can anyone think of something better than just removing the whole
>>> lt_HAVE_PLUSEQ_OP
>>> clause from the patch quoted above, and letting the shell figure it by
>>> itself later
>>> on?
>> Adding an extra eval seems to do the trick:
Yes - hidi
Hi Stefano,
On 18 Dec 2011, at 17:19, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 11:07 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2011, at 17:02, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2011 10:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 12/18/2011 06:15 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> +# We should try to m
On 12/18/2011 11:07 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 18 Dec 2011, at 17:02, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 12/18/2011 10:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 12/18/2011 06:15 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
+# We should try to minimise forks, especially on Windows where they are
+# unreasonab
Hi Stefano,
On 18 Dec 2011, at 17:02, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 10:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 12/18/2011 06:15 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> +# We should try to minimise forks, especially on Windows where they are
>>> +# unreasonably slow, so skip the feature probes whe
On 12/18/2011 10:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 12/18/2011 06:15 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
+# We should try to minimise forks, especially on Windows where they are
+# unreasonably slow, so skip the feature probes when bash is being
used:
+if test set = "${BASH_VERSION+set}"; then
+: $
On 12/18/2011 06:15 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
+# We should try to minimise forks, especially on Windows where they are
+# unreasonably slow, so skip the feature probes when bash is being used:
+if test set = "${BASH_VERSION+set}"; then
+: ${lt_HAVE_ARITH_OP="yes"}
+: ${lt_HAVE_XSI_OPS="y
