[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: %destructor feedback
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: %destructor feedback |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:02:30 -0500 (EST) |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > These two patches are still pending in this area.
>
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-12/msg00048.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-12/msg00049.html
>
> > The former is more important. I'd like Paul H.'s opinion on it, but
> > if he's busy I guess we can check it in and then revert it if problems
> > turn up. I will try to look at the latter in the next couple of days.
>
> I installed both.
Thanks. In one of these threads, I mentioned that the second patch breaks
maintainer-check because I forgot to cast the return of malloc(). I'll
submit another patch to fix this later.
> They were still badly formatted by the way :)
I'm clueless.
I just tried exporting the second patch from the email I received back
through the mailing list. I found that applying it perfectly reproduced
my original code. However, I see that the CVS copy has a number of tabs
from my original code converted to spaces. I'm guessing all of this also
holds true for the first patch, but I haven't tried it.
Could it be something wrong on your end? Did anyone else have a problem
this time? If it's still me, does anyone have any clue what I could be
doing wrong?
Joel
- Re: %destructor feedback, Paul Eggert, 2005/12/19
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/22
- Re: %destructor feedback, Joel E. Denny, 2005/12/22
- Re: %destructor feedback, Paul Eggert, 2005/12/22
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/23
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/27
- Re: %destructor feedback, Akim Demaille, 2005/12/27
- Re: %destructor feedback, Paul Eggert, 2005/12/27