Your message dated Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:45:02 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This obsolete now
has caused the Debian Bug report #193229,
regarding flex-doc: flex migration documentation
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.)
--
193229: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193229
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: flex-doc
Severity: wishlist
Tags: sid, sarge
I don't see this in the current flex-doc, but then I had trouble viewing
all of it.
I'd like to see documentation on how to convert from using the old version
of flex, to the new version. I've collected some hints listed below. I or
someone else may like to have a spot to start to work on documentation,
and I think a wishlist bug against flex-doc is appropriate as that's
likely where the documentation would go. Also, I can't seem to find
flex-old [1].
[2] says:
I've seen that a lot of release critical errors come from the new
flex 2.5.xx version in unstable.
Here are some of the more common pitfalls:
1) These strings are not allowed in any flex input files, not
even in comments: "m4_" "[[" "]]"
So if you have x[i[j]] in your C code, flex will fail!
Solution: dont use m4_ prefix and put a space between [[ and ]]
see flex.info, node "M4 Dependency" for more info
2) yylineno is redefined (eg int yylineno = 0;)
Solution: Rename this variable to something else, eg mylineno.
Or use the internal line counting of flex with
"%options yylineno" and "int lineno() const" for accessing.
3) yytext_ptr is undefined
You use unput() after the second %% in your lexer file.
This is not possible anymore due to a bug in flex.
See http://bugs.debian.org/189332 for more info.
Solution: move the unput() usage in the rules or header section
(ie between or above the two %%).
Or wait until the flex people fix this :)
[3] says:
The behaviour of flex has changed in the latest release, yes.
This is part of the gcc migration process; flex has been updated (the
buggy, rickety set of patches required to make it work with gcc was
dumped in favour of a well engineered upstream migration). Please
look at the upstream Changelog for details.
Flex has also grown an extensive test suite, and there is a
test for each of the features reported below. I strongly think that
these changes, which require changes in source, and not a bug, are
causing the vast majority of failures.
As you may see, flex scanners have become reentrant, the c++ versions
are compatible with recent c++ compilers (conform to ANSI C++, gcc
3.2), supports bison variables yylval and yylloc. Some variables have
been renamed. Flex generates C99 defs now; see
YY_TRADITIONAL_FUNC_DEFS yylineno is present in all
scanners. yylineno is per-buffer in reentrant scanners. flex tries
its best to output only the relevant portions of the skeleton when
generating a scanner, thus avoiding as much conditional compilation
as possible
The signature of all functions has changed. flex has new
command line options, and option parsing has changed (now also
supports POSIX conventions optionally). Handles POSIXLY_CORRECT
environment variable. Various i18n translations are included in the
distribution. flex now works with recent bison versions
I understand that this requires all packages using lex to
massage their lexers to conform to the new behaviour of flex; but the
gains in reduced complexity of the scanner and reentrancy and
standards compliance are well worth it.
Some details of how to upgrade to the new version of flex have been
documented in bugs[4], and may be documented later in other bugs[5].
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00287.html
[2]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00639.html
[3]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg00955.html
there's a breif thread there too
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=188665
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=188876
andhttp://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=188877 have details of
some flex migration bugs.
[5] 191184, 191510, 191484, 191187, 192013, 191957, 192193, 191188,
192243, 191189, 192430, 191491, 192444, 191192, 191193, 191194, 191195,
189695, 191159, 188877, 192545, 191197, 191200, 191815, 191942, 191483,
191819, 192196, 189339, (there may be some duplication between bugs in [4]
and this footnote), there also may be some non-RC flex migration bugs like
postresql's...
Drew Daniels
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
After three years or so of the new flex, the migration
documentation has not been written, and while this would be nice to
have, I don't think this is urgent. We seem to have survived without it
so far. Also, I do not think this is a bug in this package.
manoj
--
Per buck you get more computing action with the small
computer. R.W. Hamming
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
