|Subject:||RE: Bug in make-3.81: variable_buffer moves out from under buffer|
|Date:||Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:57:47 -0800|
In the original makefile, does the long rule really not contain any variables or involve any $(eval) trickery?
Martin Dorey <mdorey <at> 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 I might have missed some ---
xrealloc is used really heavily.
> >> 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 the time it gets here. Can you tell us what rule it falls
> over on for you or what trickery might be associated with that rule? Is
> there, for example, re-reading of makefiles going on, or $(eval) magic?
It is a static pattern rule, during the following function:
main() -> snap_deps() -> expand_deps()
This function calls patsubst_expand() on the rule target, and when
patsubst_expand returns, the original buffer contents have moved.
I tried reducing my makefile to just the two rules that trigger the bug (one
that sets variable_buffer to the default size of 200, and one that busts beyond
it), but somehow I can't get the variable_buffer to stay at 200 before it gets
to the static pattern rule. Here's what I expected the reduced makefile to
a1: a%: b%; @echo trash
c%22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222; @echo trash
But somehow the variable_buffer is already big enough when it gets to the
Bug-make mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|