Re: %destructor and stack overflow

2005-05-01 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
on 2005-04-28, at 22:46:21 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Marcus Holland-Moritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > When the parser detects a stack overflow, it should call > > the cleanup actions defined via %destructor for all symbols > > on the stack (and the symbo

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

2005-05-01 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
PROTECTED]> > > * data/yacc.c (yyerrlab): Move the code that destroys the stack > from here > (yyreturn): to here. That way, destructors are called properly > even if the stack overflows, or the user calls YYACCEPT or > YYABORT. Stack

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

2005-04-28 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
On 2005-04-27, at 23:19:43 +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > At 21:20 +0200 2005/04/27, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote: > >%destructor looks like it has the ability to be this "something > >better", but IMO it currently isn't as good as it could be (i.e. > >it is w

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

2005-04-27 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
On 2005-04-27, at 01:55:22 +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > At 00:09 +0200 2005/04/27, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote: > >On 2005-04-26, at 23:46:10 +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > > > >> Again, this is probably a question for Paul to answer, who wrote the > >> current C-pa

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

2005-04-26 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
module, and the module shouldn't leak memory as the code using the module may run for long periods of time. Marcus > At 22:39 +0200 2005/04/26, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I've been using bison for the C parser in one of my perl modules for a > >c