> From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:24:40 -0400 > > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 22:35 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > When a dynamic extension is being remade, it is unloaded by calling > > unload_file. The latter looks up its argument in a linked list of > > loaded objects. Now, unload_file is called with file->name as its > > argument; is it 100% sure that this string will be identical to what > > was used in load_file? IOW, do we never change relative file names to > > absolute ones (or vice versa), mirror backslashes to forward slashes, > > or do any other transformations that produce a different string which > > points to the same file? If we can do such transformations, unloading > > will be unreliable. > > Yes, I thought about this as I was making the change. > > I believe it is true that the initial pathname will be identical. > However there are ways in which the path might change: for example > through use of VPATH. I'm not exactly sure how all this will play out > so it needs some testing. > > I still don't want to add back the pointer to the struct. Memory usage > by GNU make is becoming a sore spot, especially as larger and larger > build systems start to move to non-recursive make. If necessary we'll > need to make the list a bit more sophisticated so we can add new > elements to it if/when we rename targets.
How about if we bite the bullet now, and simply add a fully qualified absolute file name of the dynamic object? _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
