Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: fix sed usage in build process

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.03.14 at 12:20, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> FreeBSD sed is not able to correctly parse the script
> '/[0-9]/{s,00*,0,g;p}', so break it into two smaller scripts which
> FreeBSD (and Linux) sed is able to parse.

First of all - is this again a standard conformance issue? I can't see
what's non-conformant with the old approach (which btw had been
in place for quite long a time, so I'm puzzled by this being an issue
only now), and for future reference purposes it would be nice to
know what exactly should be avoided (i.e. to prevent a similar issue
from getting introduced again later).

> --- a/xen/Rules.mk
> +++ b/xen/Rules.mk
> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ SPECIAL_DATA_SECTIONS := rodata $(foreach n,1 2 4 
> 8,rodata.str1.$(n)) \
>                        $(foreach r,rel rel.ro,data.$(r) data.$(r).local)
>  
>  $(filter %.init.o,$(obj-y) $(obj-bin-y) $(extra-y)): %.init.o: %.o Makefile
> -     $(OBJDUMP) -h $< | sed -n '/[0-9]/{s,00*,0,g;p}' | while read idx name 
> sz rest; do \
> +     $(OBJDUMP) -h $< | sed -re 's/0+/0/g' -ne '/[0-9]/p' | while read idx 
> name sz rest; do \

Is there a particular reason for moving the -n to the second expression
specification?

And I take it that you adding -r and the use of + isn't really necessary
either - the 00* approach should work equally well without using the
non-standard (but apparently more wide spread) -r? (Yes, we're just
about to commit other uses of -r, but there the alternative would be
more difficult to grok, so has better justification.)

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel