On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:35:08 +0100 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message 20110212171349.f0f5d472.kim.phillips@freescale.com you wrote:
@( printf '#define U_BOOT_VERSION "U-Boot %s%s"\n' "$(U_BOOT_VERSION)" \'$(shell $(TOPDIR)/tools/setlocalversion $(TOPDIR))' ) > $@.tmp
@( localvers='$(shell $(TOPDIR)/tools/setlocalversion $(TOPDIR))' ; \printf '#define PLAIN_VERSION "%s%s"\n' \"$(U_BOOT_VERSION)" "$${localvers}" ; \printf '#define U_BOOT_VERSION "U-Boot %s%s"\n' \"$(U_BOOT_VERSION)" "$${localvers}" ; \) > $@.tmpIMO, PLAIN_VERSION isn't descriptive enough (should really be called VERSION..?). How about going with something like:
#define U_BOOT_STR "U-Boot" #define U_BOOT_VERSION U_BOOT_STR " %s%s"...
No - not unless you guarantee that this syntax is compatible with all assemblers that may be used to build U-Boot.
I cannot do that, but, ok, not such a big deal:
/* prefix lengths must match */ #define U_BOOT_STR "U-Boot" #define U_BOOT_VERSION "U-Boot %s%s"...
case 'V':printf("mkimage version %s\n", PLAIN_VERSION);exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);&U_BOOT_VERSION[sizeof(U_BOOT_STR)]
(the - 1 is not necessary since we want to include the ' ')
No again. This is, um, ugly, and completely unnecessary.
that's a matter of personal taste, but IMO it's better than PLAIN_VERSION (what's that? - VERSION_NUMBERONLY would be way more descriptive).
If it's the &..[..] that's not appealing, feel free to do as the '+ 7' code but as '+ sizeof(...)' (to maintain a not-so-completely unnecessary clarity & consistency..but that's my opinion).
Kim