On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Boyd<sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ah ok. How about this patch instead? Then we don't duplicate the sedWhy we need a $1 here??
statement.
---->8-------
diff --git a/scripts/tags.sh b/scripts/tags.sh
index 833813a..b390096 100755
--- a/scripts/tags.sh
+++ b/scripts/tags.sh
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ exuberant()
--regex-dotconfig='/^#?[[:blank:]]*(CONFIG_[[:alnum:]_]+)/\1/'
# Remove structure forward declarations.
- LANG=C sed -i -e '/^\([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\)\t.*\t\/\^struct
\1;.*\$\/;"\tx$/d' tags
+ LANG=C sed -i -e '/^\([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\)\t.*\t\/\^struct
\1;.*\$\/;"\tx$/d' $2
}
emacs()
@@ -213,9 +213,9 @@ emacs()
xtags()
{
if $1 --version 2>&1 | grep -iq exuberant; then
- exuberant $1
+ exuberant $1 $2
elif $1 --version 2>&1 | grep -iq emacs; then
- emacs $1
+ emacs $1 $2
else
all_sources | xargs $1 -a
fi
@@ -244,11 +244,11 @@ case "$1" in
"tags")
rm -f tags
- xtags ctags
+ xtags ctags $1
;;
"TAGS")
rm -f TAGS
- xtags etags
+ xtags etags $1
;;
esac
But then with your next patch maybe it would be better to just have a flag?
----8<-----
diff --git a/scripts/tags.sh b/scripts/tags.sh
index 833813a..4b1755d 100755
--- a/scripts/tags.sh
+++ b/scripts/tags.sh
@@ -166,9 +166,6 @@ exuberant()
all_defconfigs | xargs -r $1 -a \
--langdef=dotconfig --language-force=dotconfig \
--regex-dotconfig='/^#?[[:blank:]]*(CONFIG_[[:alnum:]_]+)/\1/'
-
- # Remove structure forward declarations.
- LANG=C sed -i -e '/^\([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\)\t.*\t\/\^struct
\1;.*\$\/;"\tx$/d' tags
}
emacs()
@@ -233,6 +230,7 @@ if [ "${ARCH}" = "um" ]; then
fi
fi
+remove_structs=
case "$1" in
"cscope")
docscope
@@ -244,11 +242,18 @@ case "$1" in
"tags")
rm -f tags
- xtags ctags
+ xtags ctags $1
+ remove_structs=yThe same.
;;
"TAGS")
rm -f TAGS
- xtags etags
+ xtags etags $1
+ remove_structs=yThis way is better but I don't understand why a $1 is there.
;;
esac
+
+# Remove structure forward declarations.
+if [ -n $remove_structs ]; then
+ LANG=C sed -i -e '/^\([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*\)\t.*\t\/\^struct
\1;.*\$\/;"\tx$/d' $1
+fi
I think it is useless and if you agree with me, i will send a fine patch to you.