%% Fabio Alemagna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: fa> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>> It has already been fixed in the source tree, and the fix will be >> included in the next version of GNU make. That version has not been >> released yet. fa> Yeah, I discovered that by downloading the CVS version. When is fa> the next make release to be expected? Sometime, before too long. I'm trying to get the MINGW and OS/2 support integrated for this release. fa> Also, do you have any figures on the $(eval) performances and its fa> use in large projects? $(eval) makes things really easy and fa> neater, however I'm quite worried about the memory usage of make fa> in such cases and its performaces. Has any test been done fa> regarding this? Not by me. I don't have a large enough system based on $(eval ...) at the moment to do this sort of testing. Actually I've never run any kind of performance testing on GNU make at all (except for a few cases with _really_ egregiously bad performance characteristics), although others have and sent me some results. Barring bugs, though, I don't see any reason why $(eval ...) should be any more memory or performance intensive than include. It's all the same code. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
