On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:48:43 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 12.05.2012 01:48 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:10:08 +0200 > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Index: flashrom-message_reorg/cli_classic.c > >> =================================================================== > >> --- flashrom-message_reorg/cli_classic.c (Revision 1534) > >> +++ flashrom-message_reorg/cli_classic.c (Arbeitskopie) > >> @@ -415,11 +426,17 @@ > >> if (prog == PROGRAMMER_INVALID) > >> prog = default_programmer; > >> > >> + msg_gdbg("Command line:"); > >> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) { > >> + msg_gdbg(" %s", argv[i]); > > additional \" \" would ease debugging really stupid shell problems, but > > would make it less readable in almost all circumstances. > > making them appear in -VVV output would be an option but waaaay too > > overkill... sorry that little prefectionist[1] crept out again ;) > > > > ./flashrom -p dummy:emulate=MX25L6436,spi_status=0x1 -V -c "SFDP-capable > > chip" -w bla > > [...] > > Command line: ./flashrom -p dummy:emulate=MX25L6436,spi_status=0x1 -V -c > > SFDP-capable chip -w bla > > > > note the missing " on the -c option. > > Can be debugged easily with the new argument count in the command line echo. i beg to differ (while the count adds some information, that's a quite cumbersome way to debug it :), but i dont think it is a big issue. together with the actual error or warning message it should be obvious enough. > Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > > […] everything else seems undisputed now, so... still Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> :) -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
