[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MinGW issue
From: |
Charles Wilson |
Subject: |
Re: MinGW issue |
Date: |
Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:14:37 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MultiZilla/1.6.4.0b |
Albert Chin wrote:
Because I wasn't sure if we were allowed to use cat (just bare 'cat',
not even ${CAT}). I *know* we can use ${ECHO} and ${SED}.
ltmain already uses bare 'cat'.
Then I guess there's no problem; subject to the following question, I
figure your version is better (given two equally effective changes, the
simpler one is always better).
Why did you eliminate the quoting, and the eval?
You had:
$run ${ECHO} EXPORTS > "$output_objdir/$output.def"
$run cat "$export_symbols" >> "$output_objdir/$output.def"
But if I were to use cat, I would've said
$run eval "${ECHO} EXPORTS "'> "$output_objdir/$output.def"'
$run eval 'cat < "$export_symbols" >> "$output_objdir/$output.def"'
just on the principle of minimum change (surely there was a reason the
original version:
$run eval "${SED} -e '1iEXPORTS'"' < "$export_symbols" >
"$output_objdir/$output.def"'
had such funky quoting, and used $run eval, right?)
I suspect Albert's answer will be simple and obvious, and I'm having a
brain fart...
--
Chuck
- MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Brad, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Albert Chin, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Charles Wilson, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Albert Chin, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Charles Wilson, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Albert Chin, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue,
Charles Wilson <=
- Re: MinGW issue, Albert Chin, 2004/10/09
- Re: MinGW issue, Charles Wilson, 2004/10/10
- Re: MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/11
- Re: MinGW issue, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/10/09