On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
If you're talking about this one:
static int yyunused;
#define YYUSE(e) yyunused = (int*) &(e) && yyunused
Yes, but minus the unnecessary cast I accidentally left in.
then I suspect it will also run afoul of lint implementations that
deduce that &(e) can never be null, and print a warning.
Would (&(e)-1) solve that? I'd test this myself, but I don't have such a
lint, and I figure you might already know the answer.
Also, I don't like having an unnecessary static variable around.
Yeah, it's not elegant.
Also, it won't work if e is declared to be a register, as you can't take
addresses of registers.
I didn't know that. Do people still do that? It could be documented that
no parse param should be declared as a register.
Joel
_______________________________________________
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
