> completely reproducible without using $(eval)! "How", I wondered to myself, "is Philip defining multiple rules in one line without using $(eval)?". Eventually, I realized that the essence of one of the OP's allegations - the one we can reproduce - is that this, much simpler test case, demonstrates a bug:
mart...@whitewater:~/playpen$ cat buggyMakefile normal normal/:; mart...@whitewater:~/playpen$ make -f buggyMakefile buggyMakefile:1: target `normal' given more than once in the same rule. make: `normal' is up to date. mart...@whitewater:~/playpen$ > if you could examine why this happened in this case I bet the other allegation - about text-dependent errors - doesn't happen without $(eval). I wonder what was behind that issue, which neither Paul nor I reproduced. >> both of you see buggy behaviour I'm hoping someone will say "that's by-design for <insert reason here>". Then the OP can say "OK, not a bug, but a design error", bringing us to an impasse where we can drop the matter. -----Original Message----- From: bug-make-bounces+mdorey=bluearc....@gnu.org [mailto:bug-make-bounces+mdorey=bluearc....@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Philip Guenther Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 22:41 To: Jamie Lokier Cc: bug-make@gnu.org Subject: Re: Weird text-dependent bug in $(eval ...), simple test case On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Jamie Lokier <ja...@shareable.org> wrote: > Both of you have confirmed the bug - because the correct behaviour has > no error messages, and you both got messages. Neither of you was able > to reproduce getting a text-dependent number of messages, but both of > you see buggy behaviour so it's easy to reproduce a problem to investigate. > > Nobody wants to investigate this bug further? Not to make an insane suggestion, but have you considered filing a bug in the GNU bug tracking system, Savannah? http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/make/ As a side note, I don't understand why you call this a bug in $(eval)...as it's completely reproducible without using $(eval)! Did you try testing it directly? If not, why not? We've seen this on the list now multiple times: it seems that if someone first encounters a bug while working with $(eval), they report the problem as being in $(eval) and make no attempt to reproduce it directly. Since this is a hinderance to getting good bug reports, it would help if you could examine why this happened in this case so that it might possible be avoided in the future with others. Philip Guenther _______________________________________________ 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
