Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > cscope.out: $(FOUND_SOURCE_FILES) >> > - $(QUIET_GEN)$(RM) cscope* && \ >> > - echo $(FOUND_SOURCE_FILES) | xargs cscope -b >> > + $(QUIET_GEN)$(RM) cscope.out && \ >> > + echo $(FOUND_SOURCE_FILES) | xargs cscope -f$@ -b > > But that alone is a good change in my mind at least. Then it's clear > that that target is responsible for generating cscope.out and nothing > else. Probably. The preparatory $(RM) is close enough to the invocation of cscope that anybody adding other options like '-q' should be careful enough to notice that the line needs to be touched, too, so I can be talked into thinking that $(RM) change here is a good one. I do not know about "-f$@", which is "Meh" to me. Is there a good reason to suspect that they might want to change the default output filename? > So I'd be in favor of rewording the patch message and only retaining > this hunk (and dropping the other two). Yup. I do not mind dropping one half of this hunk, too, but again, I do not mind keeping -f$@, either [*1*]. [Footnote] *1* if the patch to add cscope support anew were done with -f$@, I wouldn't have insisted removing it, out of the principle "any Meh change is not worth applying once the code was written and working".
