On 02/08/11 12:46, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > external tools like that or 'make' are pretty much dead in the water > with current Autoconf implementation because we do not have any idea of > what shell variables are needed in the environment for the next tests. Oh yes, I quite agree, it would require a real change to the Autoconf implementation, and people who write tests would have to be disciplined about their dependencies. The default would be sequential, for backward compatibility, but if someone goes to the work to declaring their dependencies, we could assume that it could be slotted into a make -j or whatever. None of this stuff would be a breeze, of course. > (Not to speak of 32K environment+command line length on MSYS.) We'd have to stay sequential in limited environments like that. That's OK. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
