[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bison: new module
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: bison: new module |
Date: |
Sat, 2 May 2020 19:50:56 +0200 |
Hi Bruno,
> Le 2 mai 2020 à 10:45, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> a écrit :
>
> Hi Akim,
>
>> I was suggesting that the macro _itself_ could just
>> run bison on a file with the %require.
>
> This sounds better than the existing code that runs '--version'.
>
> What about users who have non-released versions installed?
> I think the %require solution will be on par with the --version
> solution, right?
Yep. Actually, it would be even more correct, as sometimes
we force the betas (such as 3.5.90) to behave as the release (it
does pass the %require "3.6" requirement). Which is what I would
expect from the macro.
> What about competing programs (like e.g. clang claims compatibility
> with gcc)? Do competing programs for bison exist and need to be
> worried about?
I know of no program that would be even close to match bison
on its input syntax. Except of course if you restrict yourself
to the Yacc subset, but then specifying a version requirement
would make no sense: the POSIX Yacc spec has not changed in years.
> At configure time, both solutions are nearly on par: the time to
> create a temporary file is negligible. And both will fail the same
> way for a 'bison' program that references missing shared libraries.
>
> Patch welcome!
Will do.
- bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/01
- Re: bison: new module, Akim Demaille, 2020/05/01
- Re: bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/01
- Re: bison: new module, Akim Demaille, 2020/05/02
- Re: bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/02
- Re: bison: new module,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: bison: new module, Akim Demaille, 2020/05/03
- Re: bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/03
- Re: bison: new module, Akim Demaille, 2020/05/03
- Re: bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/03
- Re: bison: new module, Akim Demaille, 2020/05/03
- Re: bison: new module, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/03