On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:27:14 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Aaaahhh, **that** bug. I've run into that before. I did attempt to fix it but > after wasting too many hours I gave up. :-( It seems to be a limitation in m4 > that I cannot understand how to get around. At some point, the string > literal, even though quoted inside the `[...]`, is expanded and parsed as m4 > macro expansion arguments. In theory, I should have been able to add an > additional layer of quoting and then un-quote it once it was past the > problematic point, but that did not work. > > I solved the problem by not solving it, and instead rephrased the message to > not need the comma. (Imho, this limitation actually improved the quality of > the descriptions, so it was not bad per se). > > But I agree that it is annoying to have such a limitation in > `UTIL_DEFUN_NAMED`. If you want to have a go at trying to solve it, please > do! I'll fully admit my shortcomings and state that trying to solve this > passes my knowledge and ability to manipulate m4. > > Or, maybe, you could add some documentation to `UTIL_DEFUN_NAMED` and > `UTIL_ARG_WITH`, saying that comma is not allowed in the values. Oh dear, I was looking to you for help with that one :( I'll see if there's a way to solve this on my end, but I really doubt I'll be able to if even you couldn't... What I'm more worried about though is that this same issue also seems to be causing the problem I found when using CHECK_VALUE (see above) where it's actually outright deleting the square brackets in the code passed inside the block. I don't know why this didn't initially happen earlier when I re-ran configure with different options as per Erik's request, but I can verify that this affects all the "predicate" parameters of UTIL_ARG_WITH (IF_GIVEN, IF_NOT_GIVEN, etc). This is a way more serious problem that I doubt can be commented away with some documentation since it destroys several widely shell constructs that don't have any valid replacements, which is going to be pretty problematic Side tangent - Is my usage of DEFAULT_DESC correct? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11020
