* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:38:29PM CET:
> I've (basically) addressed all your nits, and pushed to yacc-work.
Thanks!
> Just one nit on my part ...
>
> > > +# Check that the expected non-generic rules has been truly generated.
> >
> > truly have been generated.
> >
> >
Hi Ralf.
I've (basically) addressed all your nits, and pushed to yacc-work.
Just one nit on my part ...
> > +# Check that the expected non-generic rules has been truly generated.
>
> truly have been generated.
>
> > +# Otherwise, the coverage offered by this test will be weaker then
> > +# exp
On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:38:55PM CET:
> > > or add an XFAILing test that exposes this change?
> > >
> > Well, to make amend, I can add a bunch of tests verifying that the
> > idiom holds for the whole lot of *FLAGS va
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:38:55PM CET:
> > or add an XFAILing test that exposes this change?
> >
> Well, to make amend, I can add a bunch of tests verifying that the
> idiom holds for the whole lot of *FLAGS variables. Attached is my
> attempt for YFLAGS. Should I add t
On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:58PM CET:
>
> > Well, not really, but I've become more suspicious since I realised
> > that, after my recent commit v1.11-268-g3544a43 "yacc: support variable
> > expansions in *YFLAGS defi
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:58PM CET:
> On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > AFAICS it still isn't fully, even after this patch: you don't trigger
> > the "recover from removal of header" rule anywhere.
[...]
> > And if that wasn't the point of the
On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:16:35PM CET:
> > The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing
> > non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources.
> >
> > Also, the output emitted by automa
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:16:35PM CET:
> The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing
> non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources.
>
> Also, the output emitted by automake-generated rules when updating
> a yacc-generated header w
Hello automakers.
The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing
non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources.
Also, the output emitted by automake-generated rules when updating
a yacc-generated header wasn't being tested anywhere.
The attached patch should f
