[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, p

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:38:55 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:58PM CET:
> > Well, not really, but I've become more suspicious since I realised
> > that, after my recent commit v1.11-268-g3544a43 "yacc: support variable
> > expansions in *YFLAGS definition", the usual idiom to force a "fake"
> > yacc compilation with per-object flags:
> >   bin_PROGRAMS = foo
> >   foo_SOURCES = foo.y
> >   foo_YFLAGS = $(AM_YFLAGS)
> > does not work anymore (even if it has for the last decade ;->)
> Ooh.  I didn't realise that.
No, wait, that idiom still works!  I probably messed up in some
other way while writing the patch, and blamed it on the recent
YFLAGS changes without a real verification.  Smart move :-(

Sorry for the noise and the confusion.

> Are you going to fix this,
No need to, it's not broken.

> or add an XFAILing test that exposes this change?
Well, to make amend, I can add a bunch of tests verifying that the
idiom holds for the whole lot of *FLAGS variables.  Attached is my
attempt for YFLAGS.  Should I add the checks for the other *FLAGS
variables in separate tests, or in the same one (properly renaming
it then, obviously)?


Attachment: yflags-per-object-hack.test
Description: application/shellscript

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]