[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: assert failure at line 1896

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: assert failure at line 1896
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 01:23:09 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 29 May 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:

> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
> > Searching for `#define' in the Open Group's yacc spec, I see no
> > discussion of the yacc user ever specifying a #define.
> You missed YYDEBUG.

Thanks, I did miss it.

> > So, macros should be only a Bison backward-compatibility issue, right?
> If by that you mean "macros defined by the user whose names begin
> with yy or YY"

Yes, that's what I meant.

>, then I would demur for the following macros:
> since Solaris 10 yacc generates a parser whose behavior also depend on
> these user-defined macros, in a way that's compatible with Bison.

The first two don't bother me so much since they're usually just integers, 
right?  I guess putting a complex expression in there is possible, but I 
wonder if that's really anything to worry about.

It's more complex declarations like YYSTYPE that can be troublesome.  I 
wonder if we could support #define YYSTYPE just for yacc.c and only 
typedef elsewhere.  Then again, if we have to support it in yacc.c, then 
we have to support it in everything that both it and other skeletons 
depend upon (like c.m4), and so it might not be worth the trouble to 
deprecate it at all.

Well, this is beyond me for now.


reply via email to

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