[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

Only print out the target name during make.
For old style set V=1


Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>
---

For size reason this is a binary attachment. it uncompress to 
244227 bytes and max for this list is 100k


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-make-make-quiet.patch.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 23934 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081230/6340a0f5/attachment-0001.bin 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear kenneth johansson,

In message <1230625526.12143.24.camel@duo> you wrote:
> 
> For size reason this is a binary attachment. it uncompress to 
> 244227 bytes and max for this list is 100k

BINARY ATTACHMENT IGNORED.

PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.


Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The existence of god implies a violation of causality.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 11:48 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear kenneth johansson,
> 
> In message <1230625526.12143.24.camel@duo> you wrote:
> > 
> > For size reason this is a binary attachment. it uncompress to 
> > 244227 bytes and max for this list is 100k
> 
> BINARY ATTACHMENT IGNORED.
> 
> PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.

THERE IS NO INSTRUCTIONS IN THE README IN U_BOOT FOR THE CASE LARGER
THAN 100K PATCH. 

I HAVE BETTER THING TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN HUNT AROUND YOUR WEBSITE
TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION I'M NOT EVEN SURE EXIST.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

Only print out the target name during make.
For old style set V=1


Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>
---
actual patch at
http://www.4shared.com/file/78174399/3496e05d/0001-make-make-quiet.html

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear kenneth johansson,

In message <1230635276.17914.3.camel@duo> you wrote:
>
> > PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
> 
> THERE IS NO INSTRUCTIONS IN THE README IN U_BOOT FOR THE CASE LARGER
> THAN 100K PATCH. 

Let me quote the README for you:

| Submitting Patches:
| -------------------
| 
| Since the number of patches for U-Boot is growing, we need to
| establish some rules. Submissions which do not conform to these rules
| may be rejected, even when they contain important and valuable stuff.
| 
| Patches shall be sent to the u-boot-users mailing list.
| 
| Please see http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches for details.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I HAVE BETTER THING TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN HUNT AROUND YOUR WEBSITE
> TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION I'M NOT EVEN SURE EXIST.

Looks like a pretty clear hint to me. Not much hunting around needed.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,  but it is not  one
half so bad as a lot of ignorance.   - Terry Pratchett, _Equal Rites_

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear kenneth johansson,

In message <1230636057.17914.5.camel@duo> you wrote:
> 
> Only print out the target name during make.
> For old style set V=1

What is the rationale for this patch? I can see no real advantage with
it.

If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
the "-s" flag.

On the other hand, your patch braks building with "-s" - I get:

$ make -s all
grep: writing output: Broken pipe
a - ppc_longjmp.o
a - ppc_setjmp.o
a - stubs.o
a - bzlib.o
a - bzlib_crctable.o
a - bzlib_decompress.o
a - bzlib_randtable.o
a - bzlib_huffman.o
a - crc16.o
a - crc32.o
a - ctype.o
a - display_options.o
a - div64.o
a - gunzip.o
a - lmb.o
a - ldiv.o
a - sha1.o
a - string.o
a - strmhz.o
a - vsprintf.o
a - zlib.o
a - io.o
a - firmware_sc_task_bestcomm.impl.o
a - firmware_sc_task.impl.o
a - i2c.o
a - traps.o
a - cpu.o
a - cpu_init.o
a - ide.o
a - interrupts.o
a - loadtask.o
a - pci_mpc5200.o
...

etc.

Even without "-s" there are some errors for example  when  I  try  to
build the "TQM5200" configuration.

But most of all, your patch costs  a  lot  of  additional  processes.
Running  "make  all"  for  above  configuration  takes 2150 processes
without your patch, and 2410 with it. And this does  not  even  count
the additional calls to shell builtins.


Unless you have a  really  good  reason  why  this  patch  should  be
applied, I tend to reject it.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Scott Wood]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear kenneth johansson,
> 
> In message <1230636057.17914.5.camel@duo> you wrote:
>> Only print out the target name during make.
>> For old style set V=1
> 
> What is the rationale for this patch? I can see no real advantage with
> it.
> 
> If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
> the "-s" flag.

FWIW, I like the Linux-style non-verbose but not completely silent 
output.  It shows what is being built without too much noise.  It's 
useful for sanity checking that edits got saved, dependencies are 
working, etc.

> But most of all, your patch costs  a  lot  of  additional  processes.
> Running  "make  all"  for  above  configuration  takes 2150 processes
> without your patch, and 2410 with it. And this does  not  even  count
> the additional calls to shell builtins.

Unix scripting is inefficient, news at 11.  What's the actual time 
difference?

-Scott

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <495AA094.7030708@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> Unix scripting is inefficient, news at 11.  What's the actual time 
> difference?

What's the actual advantage?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of
us!"                                               -- Turkish proverb

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 30 December 2008 03:25:26 kenneth johansson wrote:
> Only print out the target name during make.
> For old style set V=1

your changelog summary "make make quiet" isnt really clear.  it should be 
something along the lines of "make default build output simple like kbuild".
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081231/fabba807/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 23:14 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear kenneth johansson,
> 
> In message <1230636057.17914.5.camel@duo> you wrote:
> > 
> > Only print out the target name during make.
> > For old style set V=1
> 
> What is the rationale for this patch? I can see no real advantage with
> it.

To highlight warnings during build. It's just a way to make the default
output less noise. 

> 
> If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
> the "-s" flag.

-s is a bit to much you get no feedback at all.

> 
> On the other hand, your patch braks building with "-s" - I get:

oops that was not intended. 

> Even without "-s" there are some errors for example  when  I  try  to
> build the "TQM5200" configuration.

with errors I guess you mean non optimal output. the patch really should
not have any impact on the binaries built. If it really breaks the build
that is a real problem and one I do not see in my test.


> Unless you have a  really  good  reason  why  this  patch  should  be
> applied, I tend to reject it.

No it's only a way to remove most of the noise as mentioned it has no
effect on u-boot itself. 

while it's a large patch it's mostly trivial search/replace so it's easy
to remove should people object to it.

But please try it out for a while and see what people think. My guess is
that the amount of warnings showing up during build will be reduced over
time with this type of feedback during build.


here is a small addition to the patch fixing the issues with -s you
found.
---------------------------
diff --git a/board/tqc/tqm5200/Makefile b/board/tqc/tqm5200/Makefile
index de0934b..b233e93 100644
--- a/board/tqc/tqm5200/Makefile
+++ b/board/tqc/tqm5200/Makefile
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ distclean:    clean
        rm -f $(LIB) core *.bak $(obj).depend
 
 cam5200_flash.o:       cam5200_flash.c
-       $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -fno-strict-aliasing -c -o $@ $<
+       $(QUIET_CC)$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -fno-strict-aliasing -c -o $@ $<
 
 #########################################################################
 
diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk
index 51a08e4..bab6ebb 100644
--- a/config.mk
+++ b/config.mk
@@ -214,10 +214,13 @@ ifndef V
         ARFLAGS = cr
 
         export V
-endif
-else #($(findstring $(MAKEFLAGS),s),s)
-ARFLAGS = crv
-endif
+else 
+       ARFLAGS = crv
+endif # V
+
+else 
+       ARFLAGS = cr
+endif # ($(findstring $(MAKEFLAGS),s),s)
 
 
 ifndef REMOTE_BUILD
diff --git a/post/Makefile b/post/Makefile
index 74a0672..a7085ef 100644
--- a/post/Makefile
+++ b/post/Makefile
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ $(GPLIB): $(obj).depend $(OBJS)
 
 # specific POST libraries
 $(SPLIB): $(obj).depend postdeps
-       $(MAKE) -C $(dir $(subst $(obj),,$@))
+       @$(MAKE) -C $(dir $(subst $(obj),,$@))
 
 # the POST lib archive
 $(LIB): $(GPLIB) $(SPLIB)
diff --git a/post/rules.mk b/post/rules.mk
index 1efc9c7..5fcb2d2 100644
--- a/post/rules.mk
+++ b/post/rules.mk
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ CPPFLAGS += -I$(TOPDIR)
 all:   $(LIB)
 
 $(LIB):        $(obj).depend $(OBJS)
-       $(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $(OBJS)
+       $(QUIET_AR)$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $(OBJS)
 
 #########################################################################
 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 31 December 2008 04:23:53 kenneth johansson wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 23:14 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear kenneth johansson,
> >
> > In message <1230636057.17914.5.camel@duo> you wrote:
> > > Only print out the target name during make.
> > > For old style set V=1
> >
> > What is the rationale for this patch? I can see no real advantage with
> > it.
>
> To highlight warnings during build. It's just a way to make the default
> output less noise.
>
> > If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
> > the "-s" flag.
>
> -s is a bit to much you get no feedback at all.

you may want to include this kind of "usage" in the changelog

> with errors I guess you mean non optimal output. the patch really should
> not have any impact on the binaries built. If it really breaks the build
> that is a real problem and one I do not see in my test.

i dont really like how the changes are integrated.  it'll require constant 
maintenance to add these QUIET prefix vars.  is there a reason we cant go the 
opposite direction and set CC/etc... directly ?  or try unifying things with 
patterns ?

i.e. drop all of the $(AR) calls in board/*/Makefile and replace it with a 
toplevel pattern kind of like:
%.a: %.o
	$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $^ -o $@
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081231/b804c620/attachment-0001.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 04:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont really like how the changes are integrated.  it'll require constant 
> maintenance to add these QUIET prefix vars.  is there a reason we cant go the 
> opposite direction and set CC/etc... directly ?  or try unifying things with 
> patterns ?

You really do not want CC AR and friends expand to anything else than
the program name. It will only lead to confusion. except the AR stuff
that has been copied all over the place there really is not that many
places that has been changed and as far as maintenance goes there is
none. People doing changes to makefiles simply cut & past from whats
already there so this "style" will propagate by itself.  

> 
> i.e. drop all of the $(AR) calls in board/*/Makefile and replace it with a 
> toplevel pattern kind of like:
> %.a: %.o
> 	$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $^ -o $@
> -mike

sure but that would be a separate changeset. I was trying to keep the
change as small as possible.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 31 December 2008 05:06:51 kenneth johansson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 04:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i.e. drop all of the $(AR) calls in board/*/Makefile and replace it with
> > a toplevel pattern kind of like:
> > %.a: %.o
> > 	$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $^ -o $@
>
> sure but that would be a separate changeset. I was trying to keep the
> change as small as possible.

those two statements dont make sense together ... if you unify the boards 
first, then the resulting "quiet" patch is a lot smaller.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081231/455b6e03/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[kenneth johansson]

On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 06:15 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008 05:06:51 kenneth johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 04:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > i.e. drop all of the $(AR) calls in board/*/Makefile and replace it with
> > > a toplevel pattern kind of like:
> > > %.a: %.o
> > > 	$(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $^ -o $@
> >
> > sure but that would be a separate changeset. I was trying to keep the
> > change as small as possible.
> 
> those two statements dont make sense together ... if you unify the boards 
> first, then the resulting "quiet" patch is a lot smaller.
> -mike

 :) I did not mean the size of the patch I meant the impact of the
change how easy it is to follow what has happened.

But if you do a rule for the library consolidation that works I'm happy
to rebase my changes on top of that. I'm not going to do the lib stuff
myself though.

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear kenneth johansson,

In message <1230715433.19628.12.camel@duo> you wrote:
>
> > If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
> > the "-s" flag.
> 
> -s is a bit to much you get no feedback at all.

But that's the preferred way of doing things, at least according to
Unix Philosophy.

No news is good news. Running a "./MAKEALL <boardname>" on a somewhat
decent machine takes no more than 10...20  seconds.  Either  you  get
warnings / error messages, or not. What else is needed?

> > On the other hand, your patch braks building with "-s" - I get:
> 
> oops that was not intended. 
> 
> > Even without "-s" there are some errors for example  when  I  try  to
> > build the "TQM5200" configuration.
> 
> with errors I guess you mean non optimal output. the patch really should

No, with errors I mean things like "grep: writing output: Broken pipe".

> > Unless you have a  really  good  reason  why  this  patch  should  be
> > applied, I tend to reject it.
> 
> No it's only a way to remove most of the noise as mentioned it has no
> effect on u-boot itself. 

If you want to have a silent build (which I do almost always, too),
then either use "./MAKEALL <boardname>" or "make -s".

> while it's a large patch it's mostly trivial search/replace so it's easy
> to remove should people object to it.

I diasgree. The changes are far from trivial.

> here is a small addition to the patch fixing the issues with -s you
> found.

I think your appraoch (and that  of  kbuild,  too)  is  fundamentally
broken.  Fixing  this  on the Makefile level is at least one level to
far up. If you really want a verbosity level of make that is  between
no  options  (normal  case) and no output (except warnings/errors, as
with -s), then this should be implemnted within make itself, as a new
make option.Then you have the changes in one place only, and each and
every software package can benefit from  it.  Modifying  hundrets  of
Makefiles here and there and then again for each new software package
makes absolutely no sense to me.

U-Boot is the wrong place to fix this. Please fix this in make, for
the benefit of others, too.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your
editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.
                - Mark Twain

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 08:47:54PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear kenneth johansson,
> 
> In message <1230715433.19628.12.camel@duo> you wrote:
> >
> > > If you find the make output annoying, you can silence make by passing
> > > the "-s" flag.
> > 
> > -s is a bit to much you get no feedback at all.
> 
> But that's the preferred way of doing things, at least according to
> Unix Philosophy.

Let's not get so bogged down in following some overgeneralized philosophy
that we ignore the preferences of users.

Besides, if you really wanted the build to be like a typical Unix tool,
shouldn't -s be default, and verbose an option?  Patches of this sort get
closer to that.

Most people don't use -s, and this will make more people see warnings.

> > > Unless you have a  really  good  reason  why  this  patch  should  be
> > > applied, I tend to reject it.
> > 
> > No it's only a way to remove most of the noise as mentioned it has no
> > effect on u-boot itself. 
> 
> If you want to have a silent build (which I do almost always, too),
> then either use "./MAKEALL <boardname>" or "make -s".

I don't want a silent build, I want a non-excessively-verbose build.

> U-Boot is the wrong place to fix this. Please fix this in make, for
> the benefit of others, too.

Hmm, the best make could reasonably do on its own would be to print the
name of each target, but that could get cluttered with intermediate and
fake targets.  While such an option would be very nice, I don't think it
should preclude makefile support for nicer output.

-Scott

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Remy Bohmer]

Hello All,

My 2 cents: (I am NOT trying to start a flame war, although I
understand how sensitive this subject is)

> I think your appraoch (and that  of  kbuild,  too)  is  fundamentally
> broken.

Maybe the configure structure, like u-boot has, that is so complex, so
hard to customise, so error prone, and were relations between options
is so unclear from the users perspective, is fundamentally broken
;-)))

I thought of it before to integrate Kconfig/kbuild and friends in
U-boot, but I got the impression back then that it would have a very
small chance of being ever accepted, so I did not invest much time in
it...

So, I really like the kbuild/kconfig method to handle such a large
amount of ifdefs options included the method of documenting the
options. Hmm, that sounds like what u-boot-v2 is doing, and I wonder
sometimes if it would exist at all if u-boot was using a different
make structure? I think it is a pity that it separated in the first
place, but that is a different discussion...

> Fixing  this  on the Makefile level is at least one level to
> far up. If you really want a verbosity level of make that is  between
> no  options  (normal  case) and no output (except warnings/errors, as
> with -s), then this should be implemnted within make itself, as a new
> make option.Then you have the changes in one place only, and each and
> every software package can benefit from  it.  Modifying  hundrets  of
> Makefiles here and there and then again for each new software package
> makes absolutely no sense to me.

Maybe the linux makefile structure is a much better approach :-)))
(in that case even weak-linking could work properly)

BTW: Kenneth is silent already for 5 days on this discussion, is he
being scared off?


Kind Regards,

Remy

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott,

In message <20090105195311.GA24702@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> > But that's the preferred way of doing things, at least according to
> > Unix Philosophy.
> 
> Let's not get so bogged down in following some overgeneralized philosophy
> that we ignore the preferences of users.

Well, users are often in dire need to learn about the philosophical
background of a design.

> Besides, if you really wanted the build to be like a typical Unix tool,
> shouldn't -s be default, and verbose an option?  Patches of this sort get
> closer to that.

I have to admit that I almost always just run "./MAKEALL boardname",
which actually is as silent as "-s" (but it stores the *full* log in
case anything goes wrong).

> Most people don't use -s, and this will make more people see warnings.

Most people don;t use out of tree building either,  and  most  people
never run MAKEALL, not even before submitting patches.

That's the line of "a billion flies can't be wrong, you know.

> > U-Boot is the wrong place to fix this. Please fix this in make, for
> > the benefit of others, too.
> 
> Hmm, the best make could reasonably do on its own would be to print the
> name of each target, but that could get cluttered with intermediate and
> fake targets.  While such an option would be very nice, I don't think it
> should preclude makefile support for nicer output.

"make" knows exactly when it is running $(CC) or $(AS)  or  $(AR)  or
$(LD)  etc.,  so it can do automatically what now everybody is adding
to a zillion of innocent Makefiles.

Sorry, but the make process is complicated enough without this  fancy
stuff.  Every  now and then it shows funny behaviour. Just searcht he
archives for obscure build errors on ext3 but  not  on  NFS  or  vice
versa.  If  ther eis a real "make" expert here, there are many better
places to invest efforts for improvement. A semi-silent build is far,
far down on th list.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble."
- Alan Perlis

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Remy,

In message <3efb10970901051230w654dc1d0w2fbf878ca853cdcb@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> > I think your appraoch (and that  of  kbuild,  too)  is  fundamentally
> > broken.
> 
> Maybe the configure structure, like u-boot has, that is so complex, so
> hard to customise, so error prone, and were relations between options
> is so unclear from the users perspective, is fundamentally broken
> ;-)))

It may be broken (or at least in need of imprevement), too. But that
doesn't contradict my statement.

> I thought of it before to integrate Kconfig/kbuild and friends in
> U-boot, but I got the impression back then that it would have a very
> small chance of being ever accepted, so I did not invest much time in
> it...

You know that Jean-Christophe is working on this, don't you?

> > Fixing  this  on the Makefile level is at least one level to
> > far up. If you really want a verbosity level of make that is  between
> > no  options  (normal  case) and no output (except warnings/errors, as
> > with -s), then this should be implemnted within make itself, as a new
> > make option.Then you have the changes in one place only, and each and
> > every software package can benefit from  it.  Modifying  hundrets  of
> > Makefiles here and there and then again for each new software package
> > makes absolutely no sense to me.
> 
> Maybe the linux makefile structure is a much better approach :-)))
> (in that case even weak-linking could work properly)

No, please don't mix things up here. There are already quite a lot of
tools out there which use such a "silencing" in their Makefiles. And
more and more do it. So it cannot ba a bad thing, he?

But wait - it is a very basic principle of software design  *not*  to
do  the  same  thing  again  and  again and from scratch in every new
project. It is good design to do this just *once*, at the right place
where it provides the required function for  all  those  looking  for
that feature.

If semi-silent output from a Makefile is wanted, then the "make" tool
itself is the correct place to add  this  feature.  Adding  it  to  a
zillion  Makefiles  in  many different projects is very fundamentally
broken.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast  determi-
nistic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space.
- unix manuals

[U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet

[Robert Schwebel]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20:57PM +0100, kenneth johansson wrote:
> 
> Only print out the target name during make.
> For old style set V=1
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson <kenneth@southpole.se>

Sidenote: u-boot-v2 uses the standard Linux build system and has quiet
operation as the default case.

rsc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |