This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix broken 'make install-po'. Fixes PR other/7727
- From: Josh Martin <Josh dot Martin at abq dot sc dot philips dot com>
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:10:22 -0600 (MDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix broken 'make install-po'. Fixes PR other/7727
- Reply-to: Josh Martin <Josh dot Martin at abq dot sc dot philips dot com>
> On Aug 29, 2002, Josh Martin <Josh.Martin@abq.sc.philips.com> wrote:
>
> > - for cat in $(CATALOGS); do \
> > + for cat in $(CATALOGS) ..; do if [ x$$cat != x.. ]; then\
>
> The common idiom used to work around lossages due to Make macro
> expansion to nothing in the for list is:
>
> list='$(CATALOGS)'; for cat in $$list; do \
>
> Patch pre-approved with this change.
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
> CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
> Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
FYI, while I agree that this would be the preferred idiom, as far as the
gcc/Makefile.in file is concerned what I used was far more common, which is why
I chose it. I would suggest that one single method should be chosen, and then
used throughout the file. If you like I could do this and submit a patch.
- Josh Martin