[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bison-2.1

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: bison-2.1
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:03:10 -0400 (EDT)

For some reason, I decided to give a little more thought to this thread. I'm not sure anyone cares, but I thought I'd point out some things.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Joel E. Denny wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:

  int* p = malloc(n*sizeof(int));

Are you saying g++-4 and g++-5 don't catch it as they should?

I just tried g++ 4.0.1, which is the current release series. It catches the above missing cast as it should.

Someone mentioned g++-5 earlier in this thread. I didn't think to question it before, but g++-5? Is this a typo?

Just out of curiosity, why is your test suite calling g++ for that test
case anyway?

Some people like to use C++ compilers when C compilers are called for.
Personally I don't think it's worth catering to such usage, but I
guess others disagree.

I'm certainly guilty of using g++ when compiling bison-generated code...
even from yacc.c and glr.c.  That seems necessary given that the C++
skeletons aren't ready.  However, when building bison itself, I don't
understand why g++ would be used.  I guess it's a moot point, but it's

I now finally realize that make maintainer-check runs the test suite with g++. This makes sense to me given that many users, such as myself, use bison's yacc.c and glr.c with C++. Moreover, many of us will probably continue to do so long after the C++ skeletons are complete. It takes a while to upgrade old code.

Who knows why, but I had it in my head that someone had actually configured with g++ in place of gcc for all of make and make check. That's what I was actually perplexed about.

Now that I understand maintainer-check, I'll be more careful with my test cases.

Sorry for the stupid questions.


reply via email to

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