Dan Manthey <dan_manthey@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm curious what is known about the speed of Make in comparison. GNU make should be just as fast as the shell, if the subsidiary commands are simple (which should be the case here). In cases like that, GNU make does a fork/exec, which is what the shell does. The downside of make is that (1) if the commands are complicated it executes them via the shell and (2) results have to be stored in a file. The upside is that you get (1) dependency checking for free, and (2) parallelism too if you're using GNU make. >> > (2) Have you ever tried putting a here document in Make? >> >> That part could be done by the shell before invoking "make". > One of the major advantages of here documents is that they need > never be explicitly named nor cleaned up. "configure" already has a scheme for creating named documents that are cleaned up automatically. So that shouldn't be an issue. > Do you think that the comparatively small idea of handling > dependencies with functions will have any speed benefits? No, I'm afraid not. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
