[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C99 in Bison
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: C99 in Bison |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:55:52 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) |
Hi Akim.
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Akim Demaille wrote:
> My quotation does not make it clear, but yysyntax_error is always defined (and
> used, even for "simple" messages), and always with this signature. So that
> one is really wrong.
yysyntax_error is disabled if YYERROR_VERBOSE is off:
% echo '%% start: ;' > tmp.y
% ./tests/bison tmp.y
% gcc -E tmp.tab.c | grep yysyntax_error
That gives no output unless I add %error-verbose to the grammar.
> so I guess we can afford dropping knr in the generated skeletons, without
> polling in the NEWS (but we can inform in the NEWS of 2.4.2 that 2.5 will
> completely drop KnR support in yacc.c, which was accidentally broken anyway
> since Bison 2.1). After all, old tarballs are still there.
I'd be willing to take that approach anyway. Like you said, if someone
needs K&R, old Bisons are lying around:
% aptitude search -F %p bison | grep -v ++
bison
bison-1.35
bison-doc
Alternatively, we could poll at help-bison and might get an answer faster.
> As for C90 in bison itself, I'm fine with it.
You mean C99, right?
> Yet C++03 would be better ;)
Why don't we discuss that again when at least 2.5 is released? Some
cherry picks are already painful.
Then again, I believe C++03 doesn't support all C99 constructs, such as
variable length arrays. So, if we're not careful about our C99 usage, we
might be making more work for whenever we switch to C++03.