A new static binary patch

[Geoff Keating]

> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: hjl@varesearch.com (H.J. Lu)

> +ifeq ("",$(tests-static))
> +built-program-cmd = $(run-built-program-cmd)
> +else
> +define built-program-cmd 
> +	$(shell if [ x$(findstring $(notdir $(built-program-file)), \
> +			$(tests-static)) = x ]; \
> +		then echo $(run-built-program-cmd); \
> +		else echo $(built-program-file); fi)
> +endef
> +endif	# tests-static

No!

Just create a _new_ rule, which _only_ knows how to run static
programs.  Don't try to make the existing rule, which is for running
non-static programs, do both jobs.

Would you try to create a rule which knew how to build a .a library
and build a .so library?

I find it particularly ugly that this is going to cause an additional
shell invocation for every program executed.

-- 
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>