Re: [PATCH v2] build: Fix make warning if there is no cppcheck

[Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> On 20 May 2022, at 13:51, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 20.05.2022 14:14, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> --- a/xen/Makefile
>> +++ b/xen/Makefile
>> @@ -694,12 +694,14 @@ $(objtree)/%.c.cppcheck: $(srctree)/%.c 
>> $(objtree)/include/generated/autoconf.h
>>      $(call if_changed,cppcheck_xml)
>> 
>> cppcheck-version:
>> -ifeq ($(shell which $(CPPCHECK)),)
>> -    $(error Cannot find cppcheck executable: $(CPPCHECK))
>> -endif
>> -ifeq ($(shell $(CPPCHECK) --version | awk '{print ($$2 < 2.7)}'),1)
>> -    $(error Please upgrade your cppcheck to version 2.7 or greater)
>> -endif
>> +    @if ! which $(CPPCHECK) > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
>> +            echo "Cannot find cppcheck executable: $(CPPCHECK)"; \
>> +            exit 1; \
>> +    fi
>> +    @if [ "$$($(CPPCHECK) --version | awk '{print ($$2 < 2.7)}')" -eq 1 ]; 
>> then \
>> +            echo "Please upgrade your cppcheck to version 2.7 or greater"; \
>> +            exit 1; \
>> +    fi
>> 
>> # Put this in generated headers this way it is cleaned by include/Makefile
>> $(objtree)/include/generated/compiler-def.h:
> 
> Fine with me, even if - as said on v1 - I would have preferred $(if ...).

Could you explain why and what you mean exactly ?
I thought the code would be more complex and less clear using if and I
do not see how it would solve the issue with which being called.

> One question though: Wouldn't it better be $(Q) instead of the two plain
> @? Preferably with that adjustment (which I guess can be made while
> committing):

I thought of it but who would be interested in actually seeing those
commands which are not “building” anything.

> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 
Thanks

Bertrand