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=blue
Martin Dorey 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,m
In the original makefile, does the long rule really not contain any
variables or involve any $(eval) trickery?
-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, 2
Martin Dorey bluearc.com> writes:
> And it looks like there are several other instances of it too.
That's what I was afraid of. I looked at the other places where xrealloc
could get called, but I couldn't find any that referenced the original buffer
address after the xrealloc. I suspected that
> it looks like this bug is still there
And it looks like there are several other instances of it too.
>> What I am looking for is some help writing a makefile that
>> is simple enough to post in a bug report.
I had a few goes but it looks like the variable_buffer is always already
big enough by
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 18:53 +, David Wuertele wrote:
> I posted this to the developer list but got no response. Looks like there's
> been no activity on that list since October. Is it dead? Anyway, here's the
> bug report:
Which list do you mean by the developer list? It's helpful if you
I posted this to the developer list but got no response. Looks like there's
been no activity on that list since October. Is it dead? Anyway, here's the
bug report:
I have a very convoluted makefile that triggers what I believe to be a bug in
make-3.81. I have looked through the savannah buglis
