Hi, On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:25:56AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Stepan Kasal <kasal@xxxxxx> writes: > > I think the solution which uses functions to implement dependencies is > > much more practical. > > Fair enough. But why not support parallelism while you're at it? > This can be done in the shell, albeit less elegantly than in 'make'. I'm not sure I know how to do it. But that's not the main reason. I think that adding parallelism might bring additional problems, which could be hard to debug. For example: make has a limit on the number of processes; in shell, you probably have to count the number of processes yourself. > > Current sources (configure.ac) will be usable without any change. > > That would be nice, yes. I am somehow afraid that attempts to parallelize might bring problems with backward compatibility. Well, on a second thought, you are probably right, paralellism in the next thing to do. I just don't plan to do it. Thanks, Stepan _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
