Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> If someone cares enough about HP's C compiler, they teach >>>> autoconf to detect this limitation and automatically add an >>>> appropriate -H option, presumably to raise its internal limit. >>> I'd love to help, but as mentioned, I have *no* idea how to feed >>> options to cc so that it passes them to cpp. >> >> For you to get past this, try ./configure CPPFLAGS=-H... >> where you choose the "..." part. > > I finally found this in the cc manpage (it's mis-formated and > near-impossible to read; I missed it the first several times). Looks > like it needs '-Wp,-H,1048576'. No I didn't write that wrong, the > macro apparently expands to *over 180 kb*, and I'd like room to add > one or two items. (I decided to verify that with 'gcc -E'... and yup, > it's around 200 kb. *Still* don't think that's excessive?)
Ha! Indeed. 180KB is excessive. > Incidentally, this construct, which should produce the same result: > > MAX ( > MAX ( > MAX ( > O_APPEND, > MAX (O_BINARY, O_CIO) > ), > MAX ( > MAX (O_DIRECT, O_DIRECTORY), > MAX (O_DSYNC, O_NOATIME) > ) > ), > MAX ( > MAX ( > O_NOCTTY, > MAX (O_NOFOLLOW, O_NOLINKS) > ), > MAX ( > MAX (O_NONBLOCK, O_SYNC), > MAX (O_TEXT, 0) > ) > ) > ) > > ...expands to a measly 2 kb. Better, indeed. Would you like to prepare the patch? http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/plain/HACKING _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
