Thanks. I was hoping it'd be something like that. Even with that clue, though, I'm not having any luck making the buffer need reallocating at the appropriate point. How frustrating.
-----Original Message----- From: bug-make-bounces+mdorey=bluearc....@gnu.org [mailto:bug-make-bounces+mdorey=bluearc....@gnu.org] On Behalf Of David Wuertele Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 15:07 To: bug-make@gnu.org Subject: Re: Bug in make-3.81: variable_buffer moves out from under buffer Martin Dorey <mdorey <at> bluearc.com> writes: > In the original makefile, does > the long rule really not contain any variables or involve any $(eval) trickery? Not sure what you mean by trickery, but it definitely involves eval and variables. The rule is created with an eval: $(eval $(call somemacro,many,different,arguments,many,many,many)) somemacro calls other macros: define somemacro $(foreach thing,$(filter-out unwanted-stuff,$(wildcard $1/*)),$(call othermacro,$1,$(thing),$2,$3,and,more,stuff)) endef othermacro calls yet more functions: define othermacro $(patsubst $1/%.x,$3/.y-%,$2): $3/.y-%: $1/%.x; echo blah blah blah endef When I unwind these calls and write the expansion out manually, I invariably change the order that stuff gets evaluated, which results in variable_buffer being large enough to avoid triggering the bug. Dave _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
