This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: configure.in patch for --enable-intermodule
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 09 Aug 2003 15:41:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: configure.in patch for --enable-intermodule
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <20030808041857.GA17263@twcny.rr.com>
neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 08.08.03 in <20030808041857.GA17263@twcny.rr.com>:
> >2003-08-07 Kelley Cook <kelleycook@wideopenwest.com>
> >
> > * configure.in (intermodule): Make switch test more portable.
> > * configure: Regenerate.
> >
> >--- configure.in.orig 2003-08-07 16:23:20.547263500 -0400
> >+++ configure.in 2003-08-07 12:35:54.729476500 -0400
> >@@ -579,10 +579,11 @@
> > # Build with intermodule optimisations
> > AC_ARG_ENABLE(intermodule,
> > [ --enable-intermodule build the compiler in one step],
> >-[case "${enable_intermodule}" in
> >- yes) onestep=-onestep : ;;
> >- *) onestep= : ;;
> >-esac])
> >+[case ${enable_intermodule} in
> >+ yes) onestep="-onestep";;
> >+ *) onestep="";;
> >+esac],
> >+[onestep=""])
> > AC_SUBST(onestep)
> >
> > # -------------------------
>
> This looks right. I'd like to know what the :s were doing there in the
> first place before I approve it, though. *growl* Geoff, what were you
> thinking? ;-)
*Is* there a shell that doesn't like the : command? This sounds like it's
making things *less* portable, not more ... I certainly seem to recall
cases needed those to avoid syntax errors, though I could no longer say
where that was.
MfG Kai