Re: MinGW issue

[Albert Chin]

On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:14:37PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 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 reviewed the original but didn't see anything worth eval'ing. The
original also had:
  export_symbols="$output_objdir/$output.exp"
  $run $RM $export_symbols

So, because there is no:
  $run eval "$RM $export_symbols"
I see no reason to eval. I think the original eval above was just
overly ambitious.

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)