echo should be replaced on echo -e to handle \n correctly, but instead,
replace it on printf as some systems can't handle echo -e.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
---
samples/bpf/Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
index 1d9be26b4edd..f50ca852c2a8 100644
--- a/samples/bpf/Makefile
+++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ endif
# Don't evaluate probes and warnings if we need to run make recursively
ifneq ($(src),)
-HDR_PROBE := $(shell echo "\#include <linux/types.h>\n struct list_head { int a; }; int main() { return 0; }" | \
+HDR_PROBE := $(shell printf "\#include <linux/types.h>\n struct list_head { int a; }; int main() { return 0; }" | \
$(HOSTCC) $(KBUILD_HOSTCFLAGS) -x c - -o /dev/null 2>/dev/null && \
echo okay)
--
2.17.1
Hello!
On 10.09.2019 13:38, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> echo should be replaced on echo -e to handle \n correctly, but instead,
s/on/with/?
> replace it on printf as some systems can't handle echo -e.
Likewise?
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
[...]
MBR, Sergei
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 01:46:48PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>Hello!
>
>On 10.09.2019 13:38, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>
>>echo should be replaced on echo -e to handle \n correctly, but instead,
>
> s/on/with/?
s/echo/printf/ instead of s/echo/echo -e/
printf looks better.
>
>>replace it on printf as some systems can't handle echo -e.
>
> Likewise?
Like some, better avoid ambiguity, for me it works fine - is not enough.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html
"A string to be written to standard output. If the first operand is
-n, or if any of the operands contain a <backslash> character, the
results are implementation-defined"
I can guess its Mac vs Linux, but it does mean nothing if it's defined as
implementation dependent, can be any.
>
>>Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
>[...]
>
>MBR, Sergei
>
--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk
On 10.09.2019 17:54, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> On 10.09.2019 13:38, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>
>>> echo should be replaced on echo -e to handle \n correctly, but instead,
>>
>> s/on/with/?
> s/echo/printf/ instead of s/echo/echo -e/
I only pointed that 'on' is incorrect there. You replace something /with/
something other...
>
> printf looks better.
>
>>
>>> replace it on printf as some systems can't handle echo -e.
>>
>> Likewise?
Same grammatical mistake.
> I can guess its Mac vs Linux, but it does mean nothing if it's defined as
> implementation dependent, can be any.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <[email protected]>
>> [...]
MBR, Sergei
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:02:11PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>On 10.09.2019 17:54, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>
>>>Hello!
>>>
>>>On 10.09.2019 13:38, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>
>>>>echo should be replaced on echo -e to handle \n correctly, but instead,
>>>
>>>?s/on/with/?
>>s/echo/printf/ instead of s/echo/echo -e/
>
> I only pointed that 'on' is incorrect there. You replace something
>/with/ something other...
>
>>
>>printf looks better.
>>
>>>
>>>>replace it on printf as some systems can't handle echo -e.
>>>
>>>? Likewise?
>
> Same grammatical mistake.
Oh, will correct it next v.
--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk