Hi, Jiri!
>>>>> On Fri, 15 May 2020 10:28:41 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 06:00:51 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
>> 1) I'm wondering how commit c363eb48ada5 ("selftests: fix too long
>> argument") worked without the patch.
> I think it was because it reduced the list of files from three
> replications to two. I did not notice the .ONESHELL; it also
> explains the oddity that I saw with @ behavior.
> With the .ONESHELL removed, we can further simplify
> INSTALL_SINGLE_RULE by removing the @echo rsync and the
> at-sign before rsync.
Yeah.
>> 2) The code does not look working as expected for me:
>> 2.1) "X$(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES)" != "X" is
>> always true sine the left part will be at least "X " (spaces);
>> 2.2) according to manual in .ONESHELL case gmake checks only first
>> line for @, so @rsync is passed to the shell;
Actully, when I checked it in the `if` branch, @ worked as
expected, sounds strange for me. But well, without .ONESHELL it
will go away.
>> 2.3) $(OUTPUT)/(TEST_PROGS) adds $(OUTPUT) only to the first prog;
>>
>> Did I miss something?
> I think you didn't miss anything and that you're right. Could
> you submit a patch to remove the spaces? I can then submit a
> patch to further simplify INSTALL_SINGLE_RULE if you don't
> want to do that, too.
Just allow rsync command echoing, right? I can do it, no problem.
And RUN_TESTS' `@` does not work in the `if` branch, so the patch
should be fixed.
Also I noticed possible issue related to my previous patch:
lib.mk does TEST_GEN_FILES := $(patsubst %,$(OUTPUT)/%,$(TEST_GEN_FILES))
(Notice := ). But it's included (at least in the bpf/Makefile)
before TEST_GEN_FILES is constructed during rules generation so
basically it's skipped. BUT in the generated rules $(OUTPUT) is
taken into account. Sort of inconsistency. Did I miss something?
If any of the lists grows too much again the next modification in
my mind is to do $(foreach ...) on the lists and handle them
file-by-file.
Thanks for the review!
--
WBR,
Yauheni Kaliuta
