On Thursday 27 December 2007 11:14:04 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 December 2007 17:03:43 Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > + set +e > > > > mkimage -A ppc -O linux -T kernel -C gzip -a 00000000 -e 00000000 \ > > > > $uboot_version -d "$vmz" "$ofile" > > > > + [ $? -eq 0 ] || exit 0 > > > > + set -e > > > > > > mkimage ... || exit 0 > > > > Could you PLEASE increase your verbosity? > > Why is mkimage || exit 0 any better than my test? > > Because it works, while your's doesn't. > > Make runs each command in a new shell. Your "set +e" is in vain, and > so is your test of the return code. > > Um... doesn't make throw an error anyway when the execution of > mkimage fails?
I'm not sure what you are talking about at all, sorry. set +e simply disables the abortion of the shell script if the mkimage command fails. The test after that checks whether it failed and returns success in that event, so the calling makefile does _not_ interrupt. It only gives you a mkimage not found message. I did test this patch on my machine where there is no mkimage and it correctly aborts the shell script and throws an error, while it does not abort the makefile process. And that is what we want. -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
