From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29549 invoked by alias); 24 May 2002 03:01:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29463 invoked from network); 24 May 2002 03:00:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU) (128.32.46.229) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 May 2002 03:00:55 -0000 Received: from tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (hilfingr@localhost) by tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA23495; Thu, 23 May 2002 20:00:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Hilfinger Message-Id: <200205240300.UAA23495@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: Andrew Cagney cc: Aidan Skinner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, hilfingr@otisco.mckusick.com Subject: Re: LEX vs FLEX; Was: [PATCH] Basic Ada files Reply-To: Hilfinger@gnat.com In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 23 May 2002 22:29:46 -0400. <3CEDA59A.3080704@cygnus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23490.1022209246.1@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:01:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 > (I note you're not the author of this) I'm not exactly comfortable with > making FLEX a condition of being able to build GDB - while the above > tries to hide it, the dependency still exists. I guess we'll need to > come back to that later. Andrew, I am the author of that, so I suppose I should jump in. I'm not quite clear on your objection here. Is it * the dependence on flex as opposed to lex? * the dependence on either lex or flex (unlikely given the dependencies on yacc)? * the option to use the .c code and NOT depend on (f)lex at all? The original code was written back in the days when the .tab.c files were part of the CVS files, and I never got around to modifying it. Just name your preference. Paul Hilfinger