This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Patch failures using crosstool

From: Daniel Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
To: Dave <dave at cc0 dot net>
Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:18:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Patch failures using crosstool
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC4AAAAAAAAAwXFn6BctJkGxIzNVlJFhrgEAK9UZhw8lxEmd07YTjCHy5wAAAAAYfwAAEAAAAKTzcuWGJnRCsMz7G38BnHYBAAAAAA==@thewifilink.com> <40D4B57A.1080108@kegel.com> <001401c45660$4ae61ba0$81000a0a@lp0> <40D4EB45.7090009@kegel.com> <000c01c45699$76486ee0$81000a0a@lp0>

Dave wrote:

yes.  The greps wouldn't be needed if patch were better about
returning nonzero status on failed patches.
patch -p1 -f --dry-run

should exit 0 if applied successfully even with fuzz...else exit 1

I haven't done too much checking to see how reliable it is though...


I think -f is the problem.  It means both "don't ask me anything"
and "never fail".  What I need instead is a flag that just means
"don't ask me any questions, but do exit with nonzero status if you
can't apply a patch".
- Dan

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Re: Interesting error in the 0.28-rc5
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Patch failures using crosstool
  - From: Dave
- Re: Patch failures using crosstool
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: Patch failures using crosstool
  - From: Dave

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]