Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1381779 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd ... && pwd)

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd  ... && pwd) Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com> - 2016-04-18 16:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd  ... && pwd) Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 17:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd  ... && pwd) "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> - 2016-04-18 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd  ... && pwd) Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 17:40 +0200

#1381779 — Re: [PATCH] tools: Use builtin $(abspath ...) instead of $(shell cd ... && pwd)

On 2016-04-08 11:15, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> 
> Avoid forking off a shell to resolve the absolute path of the output
> directory when make's builtin $(abspath ...) function will do an
> adequate job.

The abspath function is not available in make 3.80.

Michal

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1381799

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:46:53PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 2016-04-08 11:15, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > Avoid forking off a shell to resolve the absolute path of the output
> > directory when make's builtin $(abspath ...) function will do an
> > adequate job.
> 
> The abspath function is not available in make 3.80.

Do we really support make 3.80? It was released in 2002 and 3.81
followed in April 2006. That makes it a decade old now. I'd be surprised
if anyone was still using it to build recent kernels.

Is there a formal process for increasing the dependencies listed in
Documentation/Changes? Should I simply make that change as part of this
patch? Do we need broad approval?

Thierry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1381818

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:

> > > Avoid forking off a shell to resolve the absolute path of the output
> > > directory when make's builtin $(abspath ...) function will do an
> > > adequate job.
> > 
> > The abspath function is not available in make 3.80.
> 
> Do we really support make 3.80? It was released in 2002 and 3.81
> followed in April 2006. That makes it a decade old now. I'd be surprised
> if anyone was still using it to build recent kernels.
> 
> Is there a formal process for increasing the dependencies listed in
> Documentation/Changes? Should I simply make that change as part of this
> patch? Do we need broad approval?

 Hmm, what problem are you trying to solve here?  Your proposal looks to 
me like a gratuitous requirement for users to upgrade their tool (its age 
doesn't matter), which is often a burden and in any case requires extra 
time which could be used for something else.  Don't fix what ain't broke!

  Maciej

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1381840

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:17:26PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 
> > > > Avoid forking off a shell to resolve the absolute path of the output
> > > > directory when make's builtin $(abspath ...) function will do an
> > > > adequate job.
> > > 
> > > The abspath function is not available in make 3.80.
> > 
> > Do we really support make 3.80? It was released in 2002 and 3.81
> > followed in April 2006. That makes it a decade old now. I'd be surprised
> > if anyone was still using it to build recent kernels.
> > 
> > Is there a formal process for increasing the dependencies listed in
> > Documentation/Changes? Should I simply make that change as part of this
> > patch? Do we need broad approval?
> 
>  Hmm, what problem are you trying to solve here?  Your proposal looks to 
> me like a gratuitous requirement for users to upgrade their tool (its age 
> doesn't matter), which is often a burden and in any case requires extra 
> time which could be used for something else.  Don't fix what ain't broke!

Fine.

Thierry

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web