[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Jul 2006 16:36:46 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Akim Demaille wrote:
> I find it weird that we refer to the previous declaration. Either
> we accept a single declaration, and therefore keep only the first
> active and complain about those which are not "first", or we accept
> redefinition, and we just don't complain.
>
> Since we do not accept redefinitions (and the places that were
> recently spotted are divergent from this scheme such as %define
> were considered bugged), I don't understand this patch.
In the case of symbol redeclarations, Bison was reporting the location of
the previous declaration but calling it the first declaration. Since it's
an error, I don't see why it matters which it does as long as it uses the
right word.
In the case of merger result type clashes, I changed it to match what
Bison was doing for symbol redeclarations. I'm not sure why this is a
warning and not an error.
What would you like to have happen?
Joel
- redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/07/07
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/07/08
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/07/08
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/07/08
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Akim Demaille, 2006/07/09
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/07/09
- Re: redeclarations: say "previous" not "first" declaration, Joel E. Denny, 2006/07/09