Re: gcc's C parser bitten by error recovery changes in bison 1.50

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:53:49AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> | Two questions:
> | 
> | (for gcc-bugs:) Do we care?  This test case is just checking that the
> | compiler doesn't crash on wildly erroneous input.  The errors are all
> | enumerated so that dg.exp will be happy, but we could just shove a
> | { dg-excess-errors } in there and be done with it.  The exact set of
> | errors isn't, IMO, all that interesting, and the new C++ parser should
> | do a _lot_ better.
> | 
> | (for help-bison:) Assuming that we do care, how should the .y file be
> | modified so that 1.35 and 1.50 behave the same way?
> 
> Wow...  I do hope that you don't care :(  But if you really do want to
> do that, you want to apply a patch similar to the reverse of:

Um, I think you misunderstand.  Assuming that we care, I don't want to
change bison.simple.  I want to adjust the rules in GCC's .y file so
that it behaves the same way under both error recovery schemes.

zw