On 2014-02-13 18:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2014-02-12 16:22, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, Peter Rosin <peda@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>> Ok Pavel, first of all, sorry for the "smallish" delay in handling
>>> your request, and Nick, are you able to test this patch?
>> [...]
>>> Does my version work? The testsuite behaves OK for me, but other than
>>> that I haven't tested.
>>
>> Patch seems to work!
> 
> Ok, everybody seems happy. But not me, not 100% anyway. This introduces
> an extra fork, and AFAICT, the "extra protection" is only needed when
> func_lalib_p is called from func_ltwrapper_script_p. Should we perhaps
> have a separate implementation in func_ltwrapper_script_p instead of
> simply calling func_lalib_p?
> 
> Maybe we could also lose the "sed -e 4q" part when dd limits the size?

*snip* outline, real patch attached instead...

Now, which patch should I push?

The old [1]:
libtool: speed up lalib detection in execute mode

or the new?
libtool: speed up ltwrapper_script detection in execute mode

I like the latter better and will push that soonish. Unless...

Cheers,
Peter

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2014-02/msg00005.html