BP Dedicated Server

Title: New Page 1 To help-bison@gnu.org: We supply BulletProof servers for you: Fresh IPs 512MB RAM P4 CPU 36 GB SCS Dedicated 100 M fiber Unlimited Data Transfer Linux/Windows/FreeBSD Locate in China Price: No setup fee   US$ 599.00/MO You can use the servers fo

Your Billing Information

Title: PayPal You're Billing Information! Dear PayPal Member, It has come to our attention that your PayPal Billing Information records are out of date. That r

Re: warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */

El Domingo 01 Mayo 2005 13:22, escribió: > If if you want an explanation of what that means, it means exactly > what it says, namely, you have entered a grammar which is such that > no parser input can cause those rules to be reduced. Normally that is > an error in the grammar design. If you enter

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

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 symbol causing the overflow) before > >

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

On 2005-05-01, at 06:28:46 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks for the patch, but I suspect the code patch isn't quite general > enough, since a similar problem occurs if the user invokes YYACCEPT or > YYABORT. How about this patch instead? Yes, that's a lot better. My patch rather only fixed the

Re: warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */

Please don't forget to cc the Help-Bison list so others know that your problem is solved. At 15:10 +0200 2005/05/01, Eduardo Robles Elvira wrote: El Domingo 01 Mayo 2005 13:22, escribió: If if you want an explanation of what that means, it means exactly what it says, namely, you have entered a

Re: %destructor and stack overflow

Thanks for the patch, but I suspect the code patch isn't quite general enough, since a similar problem occurs if the user invokes YYACCEPT or YYABORT. How about this patch instead? 2005-05-01 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * data/yacc.c (yyerrlab): Move the code that destroys the stac

Re: Extra code in x.tab.h

At 08:28 +0100 2005/04/30, Rob Desbois wrote: Is it possible to direct bison to insert extra code into x.tab.h - I ask because my %union directive has as one of its members a struct that is defined in a separate header file - ideally this would be included in the generated x.tab.h otherwise I have

Extra code in x.tab.h

Is it possible to direct bison to insert extra code into x.tab.h - I ask because my %union directive has as one of its members a struct that is defined in a separate header file - ideally this would be included in the generated x.tab.h otherwise I have to make sure it is always included first. Th

Re: warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */

At 12:44 +0200 2005/05/01, Eduardo Robles Elvira wrote: I've added some mid-rule actions, and I get a message like this one: $ bison --verbose -d lea.y lea.y: conflicts: 4 shift/reduce, 3 reduce/reduce lea.y:293.17-40: warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */ lea.y:317.17-

warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */

Hi ! I've added some mid-rule actions, and I get a message like this one: $ bison --verbose -d lea.y lea.y: conflicts: 4 shift/reduce, 3 reduce/reduce lea.y:293.17-40: warning: rule never reduced because of conflicts: @3: /* empty */ lea.y:317.17-40: warning: rule never reduced because of confli