From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13606 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2004 03:20:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13556 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2004 03:20:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Dec 2004 03:20:43 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CgaZj-0003Q1-6k; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:20:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, bje@au.ibm.com Subject: Re: Use $(SHELL) when running move-if-change Message-ID: <20041221032039.GA13097@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, bje@au.ibm.com References: <20041220212226.32268.qmail@gossamer.airs.com> <87zn08edhb.fsf@au.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 09:32:25PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Ben Elliston writes: > > > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > > > > I'm checking in this patch to bfd/doc/Makefile.am to use $(SHELL) > > > when running move-if-change. $(SHELL) should always be used with > > > move-if-change or indeed any shell script. I suppose this one went > > > unfixed for so long because it is only run when recreating info > > > files, which normally does not need to be done when using a released > > > version. > > > > While we're discussing move-if-change here is a trivial patch that has > > been sitting in my tree for some time. I always build with make -s, > > so this bugs me perhaps more than most. Like mv(1), move-if-change > > should be silent, too. Okay for mainline? > > > > 2004-11-01 Ben Elliston > > > > * move-if-change: Don't produce any output, just like mv(1). > > Personally I would just as soon keep the top level files in synch with > gcc as much as possible. So, how about if it is accepted for gcc, > it's OK for binutils? > > If we want to get fancy, we could try this patch: Please. I find the output valuable when I'm trying to see what was rebuilt (and the silencing valuable for make -s, too). -- Daniel Jacobowitz