$ time ksh -c 'ct=0;while [ $ct -lt 20 ] ; do ct=`expr $ct + 1`
> ./ltmain gcc -I/usr/local/include -g -c -o ltmain.o ltmain.c > /dev/null 2>&1
> done'
29.00s real20.56s user 6.48s system
$ time ksh -c 'ct=0;while [ $ct -lt 20 ] ; do ct=`expr $ct + 1`
> ../=build/libtool gcc -I/usr/lo
On May 13, 2001, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'd rather have macros used across multiple libtool commands, to have
>> an idea of how we'd share them.
> I think the current CVS will give you that idea.
Indeed, it does. I'm close to being con
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Indeed, it does. I'm close to being convinced. The final test is
> going to be this: I'd like to implement test-and-exit in terms of a
> new macro, namely, test, that takes arguments such as the test to be
> performed, the if clause and the else clause.
OK. Just so yo
On May 13, 2001, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Indeed, it does. I'm close to being convinced. The final test is
>> going to be this: I'd like to implement test-and-exit in terms of a
>> new macro, namely, test, that takes arguments such as the test to be
>> p
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > In other words, your new macro should not need to do this:
>
> >[= test-and-exit test = (get "test") ... =]
>
> > because it would be redundant.
>
> Good. But I had meant to write ``I'd like *you* to implement ...''
> :-)
Then I would need to understand bette
On May 13, 2001, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > In other words, your new macro should not need to do this:
>>
>> >[= test-and-exit test = (get "test") ... =]
>>
>> > because it would be redundant.
>>
>> Good. But I had meant to write ``I'd like *you
