[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison and automake together
From: |
Philip Herron |
Subject: |
Re: Bison and automake together |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:20:12 +0000 |
On 1 November 2010 10:08, Pippijn van Steenhoven <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 02:14:49AM +0000, Philip Herron wrote:
>> Then thats probably a bug although i havent played with GLR prarsers
>> in bison you may want to post this to bison-help and see what they
>> say.
>
> The thing is that bison does produce the y.tab.h header, which it then
> assumes to exist and #includes. It doesn't know ylwrap renamed it. You
> are supposed to say %defines "myparser.h" or pass bison a -o option so it
> produces myparser.c and myparser.h in the first place.
>
Yep thing is though just like normal parsers with bison it doesn't
have any hard-coded includes, and with GLR i _think_ it should be the
same no? its for your bison head/field declarations section to do the
include no? And since this breaks automake compatibility it sounds
like a bug. Even though a work around exists.
--Phil
- Re: Bison and automake together, Pippijn van Steenhoven, 2010/11/01
- Re: Bison and automake together,
Philip Herron <=
- Re: Bison and automake together, Paulo J. Matos, 2010/11/01
- Re: Bison and automake together, Paulo J. Matos, 2010/11/01
- Re: Bison and automake together, Philip Herron, 2010/11/01
- Re: Bison and automake together, Paulo J. Matos, 2010/11/02
- Re: Bison and automake together, Philip Herron, 2010/11/02
- Re: Bison and automake together, Andrew W. Nosenko, 2010/11/02
- Re: Bison and automake together, Paulo J. Matos, 2010/11/06
- Re: Bison and automake together, Paulo J. Matos, 2010/11/06
- Re: Bison and automake together, Pippijn van Steenhoven, 2010/11/06
- Re: Bison and automake together, Philip Herron, 2010/11/06