automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] ylwrap: handle header inclusion properly


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ylwrap: handle header inclusion properly
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:54:49 +0200

On 07/13/2012 01:29 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> Le 12 juil. 2012 à 17:38, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Akim.
>>
>> On 07/12/2012 03:51 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>>> The following patches address a bug in ylwrap that cause it
>>> to be unable to handle Bison glr parsers, but also prevents
>>> future Bison releases from also using header inclusion in yacc mode.
>>>
>> Thanks!  A review of your patches will follow shortly.
>>
>> Apart from that, on which systems can you test your series?  I think
>> it should be tested at least on Solaris and a BSD system in addition
>> to GNU/Linux.
> 
> I don't have these machines available, I just have my machine.
> Don't you have a build farm somewhere in charge of this?
>
Access to BSD systems has been provided to me by the GCC compiler
farm: <http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm>
I think it would be easy for a veteran GNU developer like you to get
access there as well :-)

>>> A related, but different, matter consists in using the -o
>>> option when supported by yacc.
>>>
>> I'm not going to work on that anytime soon (and anyway, I'm waiting
>> to hear back from the Autoconf guys after this message):
>> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2012-06/msg00051.html>
>> So feel free to give it a shot if you want to ;-)
> 
> I was not pointing at anyone here, just making clear that
> even if we want to avoid using ylwrap, it does have to be
> fixed.
>
Indeed, and in fact I'm happily taking your patches :-).  But the use
of ylwrap still breaks stuff like the use of skeletons that generate
several headers <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7648>,
in addition to slowing down and complicating the yacc/lex rules, so
it would be nice to get rid of it in all the situations where it is
not strictly needed.

Thanks,
  Stefano



reply via email to

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