From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-86321-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10001 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2011 15:28:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 9991 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2011 15:28:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:28:20 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBJFSDpe004986;	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:28:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id pBJFSCU5008408;	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:28:12 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:39:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201112191528.pBJFSCU5008408@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: tromey@redhat.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <m3aa6owqey.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:07:49 -0700)
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] YACC parsers
References: <201112171937.pBHJbDhq010089@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <m3aa6owqey.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:07:49 -0700
> 
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> Mark> It may not be impossible to "fix" the OpenBSD yacc(4) here, but given
> Mark> the fact that it supports the -p option to add a prefix to all the
> Mark> relevant symbols that would be somewhat silly.  Unfortunately,
> Mark> changing the build infrastructure to use yacc -p isn't exactly
> Mark> trivial.
> 
> Mark> Opinions?
> 
> What is hard about using yacc -p?

As far as I can tell, it will require an explicit rule for each
parser, whereas currently an implicit rule is sufficient.

> I wouldn't mind getting rid of these hacks and requiring a -p-capable
> yacc.

POSIX requires the -p option, so I guess that would be fine.

> Or even requiring Bison; I think this would only be needed by gdb
> developers anyhow.

My primary development systems come with a perfectly fine yacc that
isn't bison.