[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Multiple Lexer Solution

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Multiple Lexer Solution
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:51:30 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hello Philip,

* Philip Herron wrote on Wed, May 27, 2009 at 01:51:36PM CEST:
> I think i see the portable solution to the multiple lexer problem we
> have been having, i think i will just put in a test case and update
> the documentation on whats the best way to use automake to handle it
> for you.


> The solution is correct on the automake documentation but its quite
> unclear because the %option prefix i was using in flex is probably a
> flex only option but what is does is exactly what happens in the
> current automake documentation but its awkward to setup with automake
> well its more just its unclear.

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph.  Are you saying that the bits
that are currently documented in the Automake manual are correct but not
clear or not sufficient?  And they basically have the same effect as the
%option prefix has, but the difference being that the list of #defines
is also portable to non-flex lexers?  That would be good.

> If i start to update some documentation etc + a test case to automake
> master git, do i just send the patch on the mailing list?

Yes.  Ideally you would send a patch against the git master tree of
Automake; but sending one against 1.11 would be fine, too.

> And do i need gcc copyright approval or however is it called?

For nontrivial changes, the FSF needs a copyright assignment, yes.
Details will follow off-list.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]