lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:16:53AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@huawei.com wrote:
>
> > Some test's Makefile using "$(RM)" while the other's
> > using "rm -f". It is better to use one of them in all
> > tests.
>
> I agree that this disparity appears to be unwanted. We
> should settle on one or the other.
>
> >
> > "rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone
> > konws what is does.
>
> "$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable
> which defaults to "rm -f".
> Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html
>
> Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the
> default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is
> not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f".
>
> Following your line of argumentation, we should then
> invoke "gcc" directly in every Makefile because it is
> less magic than "$(CC)". This makes no sense.

I don't think they can be compared so simply. Specifying a compiler is a common
use case. Customizing the rm command is not, in my experience anyway, and like
Michael, I would definately have to look up what RM means.

That said, I care more about consistency than which is used. Both are valid, but
$(RM), while more flexible, will cost more people time to look up what it does
as it isn't commonly used than any benefit we're likely to see from its use.

Meh. :-)

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-03 07:21    [W:0.096 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site