[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F677074.90906@bwalle.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:44:20 +0100
From: Bernhard Walle <bernhard@...lle.de>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC: mmarek@...e.cz, lacombar@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
zippel@...ux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/Kbuild.include: Fix portability problem of "echo
-e"
Am 26.02.12 22:05, schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 06:51:34PM +0100, Bernhard Walle wrote:
>> Am 26.02.12 18:48, schrieb Sam Ravnborg:
>>>>> --- a/scripts/Kbuild.include
>>>>> +++ b/scripts/Kbuild.include
>>>>> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ as-option = $(call try-run,\
>>>>> # Usage: cflags-y += $(call as-instr,instr,option1,option2)
>>>>>
>>>>> as-instr = $(call try-run,\
>>>>> - /bin/echo -e "$(1)" | $(CC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -xassembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3))
>>>>> + printf "%b\n" "$(1)" | $(CC) $(KBUILD_AFLAGS) -c -xassembler -o "$$TMP" -,$(2),$(3))
>>>>>
>>>>> # cc-option
>>>>> # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-option,-march=winchip-c6,-march=i586)
>>> Roman Zippel removed use of printf in this patch: beda9f3a13bbb22cde92a45f230a02ef2afef6a9
>>>
>>> I cannot remember why - but it would be good if you could dig up
>>> why - just so we do not hit an old issue again.
>>
>> Well, he used printf "$(1)", that's different from printf "%b\n" "$(1)"
>> since format strings inside $(1) would be interpreted.
> Makes good sense.
Can we merge that for 3.4? Who is responsible, i.e. whose tree?
Regards,
Bernhard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists