Re: LEX vs FLEX; Was: [PATCH] Basic Ada files

Andrew Cagney
2002-05-24T03:49:40Z

> (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

Just FYI, the current objective is to get the files under CVS, and then
get all relevant CORE-gdb changes and other problems resolved.

My request to Aidan was to just fix the Makefile.in patch submition so
we can table it. The Makefile.in change will then be committed last.

Any way for reference:

> * the dependence on flex as opposed to lex?

yes (but as a reservation, not an objection, I don't even know how
pratical it is to get the code build using lex).

> * the dependence on either lex or flex (unlikely given the
> dependencies on yacc)?

no

> * the option to use the .c code and NOT depend on (f)lex at all?

I suspect it will need changes. Compare it to

c-exp.tab.c: c-exp.y
$(SHELL) $(YLWRAP) "$(YACC)" $(srcdir)/c-exp.y y.tab.c
c-exp.tmp -- $(Y
FLAGS)
....

However, like I said, all of this can be returned to later. I'm not
asking Aidan to fix it now. I'm just looking for a patch sufficent to
build/test the Ada files as Aidan commits them.

Andrew