Re: Reusing a sub-grammar (by setting %start at runtime?)

2006-04-10 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
On 2006-04-06, at 18:49:20 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: > If you have a bleeding edge bison supporting push parsers, that's > trivial :) Am I right to assume that the push parser patch has not yet been applied? :-) Marcus -- Jenkinson's Law: It won't work.

Re: Reusing a sub-grammar (by setting %start at runtime?)

2006-04-08 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
On 2006-04-06, at 18:49:20 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: > >>> "Marcus" == Marcus Holland-Moritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > I'm using bison for a C parser [1], for which I'm currently rewriting > > the part that parses

Reusing a sub-grammar (by setting %start at runtime?)

2006-03-25 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
Hi, I'm using bison for a C parser [1], for which I'm currently rewriting the part that parses expressions. While being at it, I wondered if it's possible to reuse a certain part of a bison generated parser, e.g. by setting a different %start token at runtime. Currently, the %start token in my g

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

%destructor and stack overflow

2005-04-26 Thread Marcus Holland-Moritz
Hi, I've been using bison for the C parser in one of my perl modules for a couple of years now. (http://search.cpan.org/~mhx/Convert-Binary-C/) I recently noticed the %destructor feature and it looks as it would solve a problem that has long been on my todo list. Right now I'm collecting all obje