Your message dated Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:49:45 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#443559: flex: limits of integral types are always
defined
has caused the Debian Bug report #443559,
regarding flex: limits of integral types are always defined
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
443559: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=443559
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: flex
Version: 2.5.33-12
Severity: minor
Hello,
In the generated lexer, in case a C99 compiler is used, flex defines
__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS and includes <inttypes.h>, causing standard integral
limits to be defined. It then proceeds to define its own limits, which
clash somewhat with those from the header (UINT8_MAX and UINT16_MAX are
not exactly the same, causing sparse to complain). Probably these
definitions should be moved before the
#endif /* ! C99 */
stance, so as to define them only when !C99.
Thanks,
JB
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.22.1 (PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages flex depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.14 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.6.1-1+b1 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii m4 1.4.9-2 a macro processing language
Versions of packages flex recommends:
ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.1.2-3 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-2.95 [c-compiler] 1:2.95.4-27 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-3.0 [c-compiler] 1:3.0.4-6 The GNU C compiler.
ii gcc-3.2 [c-compiler] 1:3.2.3-9 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-3.3 [c-compiler] 1:3.3.6-15 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.0 [c-compiler] 4.0.3-7 The GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-15 The GNU C compiler
-- debconf information:
flex/upgrade/pre_2.5.5: false
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:14:04 +0200, Jean-Baptiste Note
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In the generated lexer, in case a C99 compiler is used, flex defines
> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS and includes <inttypes.h>, causing standard
> integral limits to be defined.
I'm with you so far.
> It then proceeds to define its own limits, which clash somewhat with
> those from the header (UINT8_MAX and UINT16_MAX are not exactly the
> same, causing sparse to complain).
The standard says nothing about UINT8_MAX macros, so flex is
fine to define them on its own -- and worse, since C99 says nothing
about them, flex can't depend on them being available.
> Probably these definitions should be moved before the
Well, this really has nothing to do with C99, so I think that is
not the right solution. The fact is that glibc seems to be defining
these useful macros for us; but flex and parsers it generates may not
be compiled in an environment where glibc nicely provided the MACROs.
So while I can see that we currently have a duplicate
definition, it does not really break anything -- so I am inclined to
call this a feature, and am closing the bug report.
manoj
--
"It took no computation to dance to the rock 'n roll station." VU
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
