Re: bison install

2005-03-02 Thread Alfonso Urdaneta
Plantier, Spencer wrote: I have installed m4-1.4 and made sure the path is in my path statement. When I install bison I get the following error: checking for gnum4... no checking for m4... /usr/ccs/bin/m4 checking whether m4 supports frozen files... no configure: error: GNU M4 1.4 is required Any h

does your cre.dit stink?'

2005-03-02 Thread Jody McCauley
How's your credit? To finance anything, home or car, credit is all that matters. RAISE your credit score in 30 days. The three main credit bureaus gather your personal information and sell it for a fee. The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives the consumer (you) the right to contest items on your rep

Re: Identifying rule responsible for lookahead

2005-03-02 Thread Soumitra Kumar
For the grammar: %token YYID YYDOT %% identifier : hier_id ; hier_id : simple_id | hier_id opt_select YYDOT simple_id ; opt_select : | opt_select '[' expr ']' ; simple_id : YYID ; expr : hier_id | function_call ; function_call : expr YYDOT Y

Re: Identifying rule responsible for lookahead

2005-03-02 Thread Henrik Sorensen
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19.50, Hans Aberg wrote: > Please keep the cc to help-bison so that others may help. could you restate your problem ? ___ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce'

2005-03-02 Thread Hans Aberg
On 2005/03/02 17:07, Derek M Jones at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I have some vague memory that somebody found (fairly late, in the 90'ies) a >> grammar transformation to make C becoming LALR(1) (modulo the usual context >> tweaks for "typedef", etc.) Then you would not need using the %glr option.

Re: Identifying rule responsible for lookahead

2005-03-02 Thread Hans Aberg
Please keep the cc to help-bison so that others may help. On 2005/03/02 00:38, Soumitra Kumar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks for your comment. > I thought there may be a way to get this information > from --trace option, that's why I posted on help-bison > list. The question is how. > I h

Re: Forcing multiple parse stacks to 'reduce'

2005-03-02 Thread Derek M Jones
Hans, >>typedef x y; >>typedef i j; >>{ >> >>is a syntactically valid function definition. > >So it seems, but I have not been able to figure out which function. :-) The syntax does not permit an empty declaration. So x must be the declarator. The second typedef is simply a declaration and is n