On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:07:20 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07.01.2016 19:50, Stefan Tauner wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > > Thanks! > > Comments below. > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > index 6ddca58..500f71f 100644 > > --- a/Makefile > > +++ b/Makefile > > @@ -966,6 +986,24 @@ ifeq ($(CHECK_LIBUSB0), yes) > > rm -f .test.c .test.o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX); exit 1; }; } > > 2>>$(BUILD_DETAILS_FILE); echo $? >&3 ; } | tee -a $(BUILD_DETAILS_FILE) > > >&4; } 3>&1;} | { read rc ; exit ${rc}; } } 4>&1 > > @rm -f .test.c .test.o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX) > > endif > > +ifeq ($(CHECK_LIBUSB1), yes) > > + @printf "Checking for libusb-1.0 headers... " > > + @echo "$$LIBUSB1_TEST" > .test.c > > + @printf "\nexec: %s\n" "$(CC) -c $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) .test.c -o > > .test.o" >>$(BUILD_DETAILS_FILE) > > + @$(CC) -c $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) .test.c -o .test.o >/dev/null && > > \ > > + echo "found." || ( echo "not found."; echo; > > \ > > + echo "Please install libusb-1.0 headers."; \ > > + echo "See README for more information."; echo; > > \ > > + rm -f .test.c .test.o; exit 1) > > + @printf "Checking if libusb-1.0 is usable... " > > + @printf "\nexec: %s\n" "$(CC) $(LDFLAGS) .test.o -o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX) > > $(LIBS) $(USB1LIBS)" >>$(BUILD_DETAILS_FILE) > > + @$(CC) $(LDFLAGS) .test.o -o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX) $(LIBS) $(USB1LIBS) > > >/dev/null && \ > > + echo "yes." || ( echo "no."; > > \ > > + echo "Please install libusb-1.0."; \ > > + echo "See README for more information."; echo; > > \ > > + rm -f .test.c .test.o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX); exit 1) > > + @rm -f .test.c .test.o .test$(EXEC_SUFFIX) > > +endif > > The libusb1 test doesn't use the same fd redirect and tee operations > which are present in the libusb0 test. Is that intentional? Of course not... -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
