[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Another - Bison 1.35 works but Bison 1.50 Doesn't

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Another - Bison 1.35 works but Bison 1.50 Doesn't
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:55:43 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Tim Van Holder <address@hidden>
> Date: 14 Oct 2002 08:57:46 +0200
> without the warning, a memory leak is introduced if the semantic
> value is dynamically allocated.  With the warning, it can be easily
> found & fixed (e.g. by adding code to free that memory).

But the warning doesn't suffice to catch such problems.  For example:

  a : a1 a2 a3 a4 ;

Suppose 'a' is untyped but 'a1' through 'a4' are typed and dynamically
allocated.  The warning that you mention would catch 'a1', but 'a2'
through 'a4' would go uncaught.  Furthermore, if the rule has an
action (which is typical in real grammars), no warning will be
generated and even 'a1' won't be caught.

It would be nice to have a memory-leak warning feature, but that would
be a different feature, one that would require more thought.

> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.

Ouch.  Can't you shut that boilerplate off?

reply via email to

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