I'm saying that "exit 1; touch $@" looks to me like a C function that has code following a return statement. Can the "touch" ever execute?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Are you saying I should just do if !error then touch? Or are you > complaining about the rather odd touch -c after? On the latter point, > I struggled a bit with what to do about this. Probably the most > canonically correct thing to do, is to replace "@error=false" with > "$(AM_V_GEN) error=false". The downside of this, is it prints the > entire if statement when we aren't doing silent compilation. > > Thoughts? We could sink up in person if this thread is getting confusing. > > Ethan > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:58:16PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> The AM_V_GEN macro fits more cleanly with the automake silent rules > >> option. When enabled it will print "GEN <filename>" instead of simply > >> echoing the command as before. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> > > > > I think that the first change is OK, but I don't understand the second > > one. "exit 1; touch $@" looks totally nuts to me. > >> - if $$error; then exit 1; else echo touch $@; touch $@; fi > >> + if $$error; then exit 1; touch $@; fi > >> + $(AM_V_GEN) touch -c $@ _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
