[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union
From: |
Richard B. Kreckel |
Subject: |
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:55:33 +0100 (CET) |
On 15 Mar 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
[...]
> | > You are not using the C++ output! Run bison -S bison.c++.
> |
> | Ahh, I was not aware of this option in CVS' GNU Bison 1.49a. Above error
> | is of course gone now. However, several hundred other errors crop up,
> | which I don't wish to analyze right now. Methinks bison.c++ is something
> | for the long run...
>
> Again, I'm using it with success. I do agree it needs to be polished,
> but to do that, we need to meet other users, such as you. So I
> perfectly understand your point wrt. the urgent need for an answer
> _now_. But I'm really referring to something else: would you accept
> trying the CVS Bison and report to us the problems you face?
Sure, we can try that then.
> | [ ] Option 1: Only morons use bison.simple with C++!
>
> That's true :)
>
> | [ ] Option 2: It's eazy -- and backporting in distros suxx big time.
> | [ ] Option 3: Distributions should care about their software (LOL).
> |
> | Hmm, I think I can guess Vincent's and Akim's votes. :-)
>
> I'm for providing a degraded bison.simple for C++ users. Is that OK,
> or in addition you'd want the regular bison.simple to be OK with C++?
[X] I would prefer the regular bison.simple to work with C++, so we
don't have to change all the packages.
What was wrong with the old skeleton? From what Hans said, it would
memcpy as soon as the stack was full, causing not-so-nice pyrotechnical
effects. Well, it was at least working as long as the stack was low.
And, out of curiosity: what makes the stack double-ended?
And, later, he wrote:
> Nevertheless, I would really like to see the actual code which is
> used. In particular, I'd like to see the definition of YYSTYPE,
> because I don't understand what possibly could have changed for you.
Hmm, AFAICT, YYSTYPE is int and always has been...
> I agree yylloc causes new problems, but yylval should not. It seems
> to me that the current Bison reveals a problem, but does not cause it.
>
> Where can I see your package?
Our's is here:
:pserver:address@hidden:/home/cvs, module GiNaC.
Doxygen is there (careful, no subdir):
:pserver:address@hidden:/u/kp3softd/cvsroot, module doxygen.
Regards
-richy.
--
Richard Kreckel
<address@hidden>
<http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/>
- member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/13
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/13
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/14
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union,
Richard B. Kreckel <=
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Christian Bauer, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Anthony DeRobertis, 2002/03/19
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/19