From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7215 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2011 15:39:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 7207 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2011 15:39:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:38:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBJFcpSL021490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:38:51 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBJFcpke007902; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:38:51 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBJFcnbI003816; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:38:50 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] YACC parsers References: <201112171937.pBHJbDhq010089@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201112191528.pBJFSCU5008408@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201112191528.pBJFSCU5008408@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:28:12 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00641.txt.bz2 Mark> As far as I can tell, it will require an explicit rule for each Mark> parser, whereas currently an implicit rule is sufficient. Yeah, I see. That isn't such a big deal. We can stuff the body of the rule into a variable and reuse it in each explicit rule. >> I wouldn't mind getting rid of these hacks and requiring a -p-capable >> yacc. Mark> POSIX requires the -p option, so I guess that would be fine. Fine by me. >> Or even requiring Bison; I think this would only be needed by gdb >> developers anyhow. Mark> My primary development systems come with a perfectly fine yacc that Mark> isn't bison. I suspect eventually I will have a reason to require bison, but we can put that off until and if it ever happens. Tom