Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> It also doesn't help that shells are awkward at passing status out of a
> for-loop. I think the most "make-ish" way of doing this would actually
> be to lose the for loop and have a per-cocci-per-source target.
As we assume we can freely use GNUmake facilities, another option,
(i.e. the most "gnumake-ish" way) may be to have it unroll the loop
with $(foreach,...) so that the shell just sees a series of
commands.
> I don't know if that would make the patches harder to apply. The results
> aren't full patches, so I assume you usually do some kind of munging on
> them? I resorted to:
>
> make coccicheck SPATCH='spatch --in-place'
>
> Makefile | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 9ec6065cc..d97633892 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -2336,9 +2336,17 @@ check: common-cmds.h
> C_SOURCES = $(patsubst %.o,%.c,$(C_OBJ))
> %.cocci.patch: %.cocci $(C_SOURCES)
> @echo ' ' SPATCH $<; \
> + ret=0; \
> for f in $(C_SOURCES); do \
> - $(SPATCH) --sp-file $< $$f $(SPATCH_FLAGS); \
> - done >$@ 2>$@.log; \
> + $(SPATCH) --sp-file $< $$f $(SPATCH_FLAGS) || \
> + { ret=$$?; break; }; \
> + done >$@+ 2>$@.log; \
> + if test $$ret != 0; \
> + then \
> + cat $@.log; \
> + exit 1; \
> + fi; \
> + mv $@+ $@; \
> if test -s $@; \
> then \
> echo ' ' SPATCH result: $@; \