On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This thread started on help-bison. At some point, I CC'ed to
bug-bison. However, it eventually lost that CC and then picked it up
again. Could this be why you missed messages?
Yes, that's it. It's such a l
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This thread started on help-bison. At some point, I CC'ed to
> bug-bison. However, it eventually lost that CC and then picked it up
> again. Could this be why you missed messages?
Yes, that's it. It's such a long thread, though. If you're thinking
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul, I just looked through the ChangeLog. I believe you committed
the patch that made YYABORT and YYACCEPT invoke RHS destructors.
Yes, I'm the guilty party. :-) I hadn't thought through these
consequence
"Joel E. Denny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul, I just looked through the ChangeLog. I believe you committed
> the patch that made YYABORT and YYACCEPT invoke RHS destructors.
Yes, I'm the guilty party. :-) I hadn't thought through these
consequences.
> As I see it, there would be one rul
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This was reported in
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00050.html
> and
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00037.html
>
> and fixed in
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg0
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Akim Demaille wrote:
"Joel" == Joel E Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've also noticed that the bison documentation says:
> Note that in the future, Bison might also consider that right hand
> side members that are not mentioned in the action can be destroyed.
>
This was reported in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00050.html
and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00037.html
and fixed in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2005-09/msg00030.html
Thanks!
>>> "Joel" == Joel E Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I prefer that the clean-up *not* happen automatically for either
> YYABORT or YYERROR -- as in GLR parsing. This would allow for a
> simple consistent rule: if the user's semantic action executes,
> then the user's semantic action is re