Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes: > and is strictly correct according to c99.
But the generated code is not correct according to C89. In C89, the behavior is undefined if a macro defined with one argument is called with zero arguments. Please see the official interpretation for Defect Report #003, question 3, in <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_003.html#Question3>. Surely flex is not intended to require C99; many compilers don't support C99 yet, or don't fully support it. GCC is in that category, and people are reporting problems with GCC here. > The fix was removed since it caused all the tests to fail Sorry about that. I forgot about the reentrant case. Here is a revised patch; I checked that "make check" works. 2005-10-21 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * main.c (readin): Don't output an invalid macro definition for yywrap; some C compilers complain about this. --- flex-2.5.31-34/main.c 2005-10-10 16:43:31.000000000 -0700 +++ flex-2.5.31-34-yywrap/main.c 2005-10-21 00:53:40.000000000 -0700 @@ -1560,7 +1560,10 @@ void readin () } if (!do_yywrap) { - outn ("\n#define yywrap(n) 1"); + if (reentrant) + outn ("\n#define yywrap(n) 1"); + else + outn ("\n#define yywrap() 1"); outn ("#define YY_SKIP_YYWRAP"); } -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
