> Meanwhile, this may work as an appropriate wording that still
> permits IRIX behavior, by stating that recursive expansion is
> only specified for parenthesized variables that are not one
> of the five internal macros (@, %, ?, <, *), and only when
> nested with () or {}:
>
> Change line 958
* Bruce Korb wrote on Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:36:16PM CET:
> On 12/07/10 01:54, Schwarz, Konrad wrote:
> > $($...@_flags) is a very useful, as it allows target-specific
> > flags.
>
> For all targets whose name conforms to make macro name requirements.
Right. But since period is allowed, only hy
On 12/07/10 01:54, Schwarz, Konrad wrote:
>> as well as listing in the rationale examples such as $($(@)_FLAGS) and
>> $(V$O) that are unspecified.
>
> $($...@_flags) is a very useful, as it allows target-specific
> flags.
For all targets whose name conforms to make macro name requirements.
It w
I may have missed this in the earlier discussions, but, what should
make report/return if it encounters an infinitely recursive
variable? How deep should make be required to expand before it
speculates that further expansion will result in infinite recursion?
Vbad = $(V$(X11))
X11 = $(Vbad)
[adding the Austin Group; this is in regards to
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=336, and this email implies that
we may want to tweak the wording and restart the 30-day interpretation
window if it is important to not invalidate existing IRIX behavior]
On 12/05/2010 08:50 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 04:50:05AM CET:
> IRIX 6.5 make fails over each expansion in output lines 5, 6, and 7,
That should have been '4, 5, and 6'. Sorry.
> e.g.:
>
> v1, v1, v
> v1, v11, v
> R
> UX:make: ERROR: Unmatched closing curly braces or parenthesis in line
> co
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:21:13PM CET:
> On 12/02/2010 12:10 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it was mentioned before in the discussion, but
> > portability-wise, there is a difference between one level of recursion
> > and arbitrary many. IIRC then IRIX
On 12/02/2010 12:10 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I'm not sure if it was mentioned before in the discussion, but
> portability-wise, there is a difference between one level of recursion
> and arbitrary many. IIRC then IRIX make only supported one level, i.e.,
> $(var1$(var2$(var3)))
>
> was erro
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 06:14:28PM CET:
> Good news! Today's Austin Group meeting included a review of
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=336, which is proposing that
> $(var$(V)) as a way of choosing between $(var0) and $(var1) based on the
> contents of $(V) be
