Re: [3.2] Reconsider patches for bison 1.50?

2002-10-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50 to the 3.2 branch. OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell[EMAIL PROTECTED] CodeSourcery, LLChttp://www.codesourcery.com

Re: [3.2] Reconsider patches for bison 1.50?

2002-10-21 Thread Matthias Klose
Mark Mitchell writes: I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50 to the 3.2 branch. OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00787.html

Re: [3.2] Reconsider patches for bison 1.50?

2002-10-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
--On Monday, October 21, 2002 10:18:06 AM +0200 Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Mitchell writes: I think we should reconsider not backporting the patches for bison 1.50 to the 3.2 branch. OK; let's reconsider. Please point me at the patches.

[3.2] Reconsider patches for bison 1.50?

2002-10-20 Thread Zack Weinberg
This is a quote from the Debian package changelog for gcc 3.2: * FTBS: With the switch to bison-1.50 (and 1.75), gcc-3.2 fails to build from source on Debian unstable systems. This is fixed in gcc HEAD, but not on the current release branch. HELP NEEDED: - check what is missing

Re: [3.2] Reconsider patches for bison 1.50?

2002-10-20 Thread Matthias Klose
Zack Weinberg writes: This is a quote from the Debian package changelog for gcc 3.2: * FTBS: With the switch to bison-1.50 (and 1.75), gcc-3.2 fails to build from source on Debian unstable systems. This is fixed in gcc HEAD, but not on the current release branch. HELP