FYI: I easily updated to 1.75 and all is well.
Thanks for all the help,
L.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> >> It's interesting that bison 1.28's output is sufficiently different to
> >> cause a problem, but we are not going to worry about supporting use of
> >> old bisons.
>
> W
I said:
>> It's interesting that bison 1.28's output is sufficiently different to
>> cause a problem, but we are not going to worry about supporting use of
>> old bisons.
Well, it turned out to be reasonably easy to fix this, so I did. It
seems that bison 1.28 generates a .h file that cannot be i
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to clarify, do the tarballs for /contrib/seg have the pre-processed
> bison output, or are people required to have more current bisons to
> compile the code?
AFAIK we do not provide prebuilt bison or flex output for any of the
contrib modules.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurette Cisneros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > bison --version
> > GNU Bison version 1.28
>
> > Should I update it?
>
> Yes.
>
> It's interesting that bison 1.28's output is sufficiently different to
> cause a problem, but we are not going to worry about supporting use of
>
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do I have to install the CVS version of Bison to get the new compile to
> work?
No, you can use their current release, 1.75. (Reportedly 1.50 works
too, but I never tried it.)
regards, tom lane
-
> Laurette Cisneros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > bison --version
> > GNU Bison version 1.28
>
> > Should I update it?
>
> Yes.
>
> It's interesting that bison 1.28's output is sufficiently different to
> cause a problem, but we are not going to worry about supporting use of
> old bisons.
Do I h
Laurette Cisneros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bison --version
> GNU Bison version 1.28
> Should I update it?
Yes.
It's interesting that bison 1.28's output is sufficiently different to
cause a problem, but we are not going to worry about supporting use of
old bisons.
r
Oh, I see it now, I think there was a change on November 1st to rule
generation, but I can't see how that would cause your problem.
If you 'patch -R' the attached patch, does it fix the problem?
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
I think bison 1.75 will fix it. I am just not sure why earlier releases
fail that way.
---
Laurette Cisneros wrote:
> bison --version
> GNU Bison version 1.28
>
> Should I update it?
>
> This just started with 7.3b4.
>
>
bison --version
GNU Bison version 1.28
Should I update it?
This just started with 7.3b4.
Thanks,
L.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Wow, that is strange. I have bison 1.75 here and it compiles fine.
> What version of bison do you have?
>
> bison --version
>
> --
Wow, that is strange. I have bison 1.75 here and it compiles fine.
What version of bison do you have?
bison --version
---
Laurette Cisneros wrote:
>
> I saw this when compiling 7.3b4 as well and also with 7.3b5
>
I saw this when compiling 7.3b4 as well and also with 7.3b5
cd contrib
make
...
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/nfs/visor/u/software/postgres/postgresql-7.3b5/contrib/rtree_gist'
make[1]: Entering directory
`/nfs/visor/u/software/postgres/postgresql-7.3b5/contrib/seg'
sed 's,MODULE_PATHNAME,$libdir/
12 matches
Mail list logo
