From: Masahiro Yamada
> Sent: 04 June 2019 04:31
...
> > > > You could use:
> > > > $(shell sh -c "command -v $(c)gcc")
> > > > or maybe:
> > > > $(shell command$${x:+} -v $(c)gcc)
> > >
> > >
> > > How about this?
> > >
> > > $(shell : ~; command -v $(c)gcc)
> >
> > Overcomplicated ....
> >
> > I've not looked at the list of 'special characters' in make,
> > but I suspect any variable expansion is enough.
> > Since ${x:+} always expands to the empty string (whether or
> > not 'x' is defined) it can't have any unfortunate side effects.
>
>
> Probably, my eyes are used to Makefile.
> ":" is a no-op command, and it is used everywhere in kernel Makefiles
> in the form of "@:'
>
> It depends on people which solution seems simpler.
> So, this argument tends to end up with bikesheding.
I am fully aware of ':', it is a shell builtin that always return success.
Usually used when you want the side-effects of substitutions without
executing anything (eg : ${foo:=bar} ), to change the result of a
sequence of shell commands or as a dummy (eg while :; do :; done; )
Very annoyingly bash parses !: as something other than 'not true'.
$(shell command$${x:+} -v $(c)gcc) will be marginally faster
because it is less parsing.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
