Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-10 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 9, 2003, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alexandre> the *_OBJECT definitions assume the absence of shell-active Alexandre> characters in filenames, which is probably a safe Alexandre> assumption for Makefiles. > It is

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-09 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alexandre> the *_OBJECT definitions assume the absence of shell-active Alexandre> characters in filenames, which is probably a safe Alexandre> assumption for Makefiles. It isn't unreasonable for a Java .class file's name to contain

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-04 Thread Mohan Embar
Hi Alexandre, >I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the >shell script. For starters, it fails to support all of libtool's >configure-time options, such as --disable-static, --disable-shared, >--with-pic, as well as their per-compilation equivalent command-line >flags. I

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-03 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 3, 2003, Mohan Embar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wanted to see how much faster the libgcj build would go if I took > libtool out of the picture for some of the pieces. I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the shell script. For starters, it fails to support all