![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> -cmd = @$(if $($(quiet)cmd_$(1)),\>> - echo ' $(call escsq,$($(quiet)cmd_$(1)))' &&) $(cmd_$(1)) >> +cmd = @$(echo-cmd) $(cmd_$(1))>Here you replace > echo 'xxx' && cmd >with > echo 'xxx'; cmd > >Since we assume echo will always succeed I see no difference in >behaviour, but I recall the '&&' was there for some specific reason. >Just wondering why it is so - I see no problems with it. Since I didn't see a difference in behavior, and it permitted more re-use of existing constructs, I thought it'd be reasonable to be replaced; I didn't know of anything that would require the &&. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-31 08:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||