Re: Bison bootstrap

Sorry for the trouble, installing build-essential fixed it for me. On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:24 PM Valentin Tolmer wrote: > Hello! > > I'm trying to bootstrap bison to start hacking on it. I just did it > successfully on a computer, but on another one, it's not worki

Bison bootstrap

is too old? In which case, where can I download a (pre-compiled) newer one, for linux (a debian-like)? Thanks, -- Valentin Tolmer ___ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

Re: Bison for windows ?

that always works. Regards, -- Valentin Tolmer ___ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

Re: QUESTION: is bison recursive?

tadeb...@gmail.com > blog.borovsak.si > > > ___ > help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison -- Valentin Tolmer ___ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

Re: [REQUEST] Infinite recursion warning

no words matched, or something like that. The current error makes you think that the rule was useless because it could not be reached, or that another rule always takes precedence over this one. -- Valentin Tolmer ___ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

[REQUEST] Infinite recursion warning

Hello, In the following grammar, the only word recognized is NIL, because of an infinite recursion. exp: NIL | NIL list list: NIL list It would be nice if Bison could raise a warning in case of an infinite recursion. Thanks! -- Valentin Tolmer

Re: FW: I can't make sure it's a bug. But I think it's important.

ar as a newline token, explicitly. E. g. list-exp: exp newline | exp newline list-exp ; Valentin Tolmer ___ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison

Re: Weird problem

Hi, Indeed, you were right, it's always the same address. However, uniqstr_assert only checks that the string has already been inserted in the uniqstr table, so as the char have already been used for symbols, they are present in the table, and uniqstr_assert doesn't fail. I believe a better a

Weird problem

Hello everyone, I'm working on an addition to bison, and I have a small grammar problem... I added something to the bison grammar, to understand statements such as %prec OR '+' > '*' (for example) However when parsing a statement with several tokens as char, I have a problem. The example I'm c

Re: Why is this a shift/reduce conflict?

On Wed 05 Jun 2013 12:06:30 AM CEST, Adam Smalin wrote: During my test to get << a difference precedence then < I suspect it is impossible because after expr < expr [<] it has no idea if it will be a << expr or an < expression thus I can't tell it to have a different precedence between < and < <