Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/28/2010 08:54 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: >> >>>From 24ab183f237468f2aa59d2424dc416f61c183671 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Jose E. Marchesi <jema...@gnu.org> >> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:42:03 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Macro _prohibit_regexp replaced by _sc_search_regep and >> rules adapted to use the new macro. > > Typo (s/regep/regexp/). Also, that's an awfully long subject, which > later shows up in 'git log --oneline'. I would trim it to something > like the following (one line summary, then further details separated by > a blank line): > > maint: replace _prohibit_regexp with _sc_search_regexp > > All existing rules are adapted to use the new factorization, which > provides a more declarative syntax for pattern searching syntax checks. > >> # Don't use Texinfo @acronym{} as it is not a good idea. >> sc_texinfo_acronym: >> - @if $(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -lE '\.texi$$' >/dev/null; then \ >> - grep -nE '@acronym{' \ >> - $$($(VC_LIST_EXCEPT) | grep -E '\.texi$$') && \ >> - { echo '$(ME): found use of Texinfo @acronym{}' 1>&2; \ >> - exit 1; } || :; \ >> - else :; \ >> - fi >> + @prohibit='@acronym{' \ >> + in_vc_files='\.texi$$' \ >> + halt='found use of Texinfo @acronym{}' \ >> + $(_sc_search_regexp) > > Jim mentioned that this rule should also look at *.txi and *.texinfo. > >> # #if HAVE_... will evaluate to false for any non numeric string. >> # That would be flagged by using -Wundef, however gnulib currently >> # tests many undefined macros, and so we can't enable that option. >> # So at least preclude common boolean strings as macro values. >> sc_Wundef_boolean: >> - @test -e '$(CONFIG_INCLUDE)' && \ >> - grep -Ei '^#define.*(yes|no|true|false)$$' '$(CONFIG_INCLUDE)' && \ >> - { echo 'Use 0 or 1 for macro values' 1>&2; exit 1; } || : >> + @prohibit='^#define.*(yes|no|true|false)$$' \ >> + in_vc_files='$(CONFIG_INCLUDE)' \ >> + halt='Use 0 or 1 for macro values' \ >> + $(_sc_search_regexp) > > $(CONFIG_INCLUDE) is not a controlled file. You need to use in_files > instead. > > Thanks again for doing this nice factorization.
Good catch. I've been testing this and will send feedback tomorrow.