On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:17:39AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If this is the issue, I could force test 90 and 96 to use the > > skeleton push.c until we merge the two together (probably in a week > > or so?). > > Yes, that sounds good. Can you please prepare a revised patch to do that? > Thanks.
Yes, I'll submit another patch. I do have a question though. This patch makes it so that yylex takes parameters like: static int yylex (YYSTYPE *lvalp, YYLTYPE *llocp) because now the variables YYSTYPE my_lval; YYLTYPE my_lloc; are local. Everything seems to work but it looks like yyerror also wants to take the YYLTYPE *llocp parameter, instead of being a void*. Should I make it do that? That would also require changing b4_yyerror_args macro from # b4_yyerror_args # --------------- # Arguments passed to yyerror: user args plus yylloc. m4_define([b4_yyerror_args], [b4_yacc_pure_if([b4_locations_if([&yylloc, ])])dnl m4_ifset([b4_parse_param], [b4_c_args(b4_parse_param), ])]) to # b4_yyerror_args # --------------- # Arguments passed to yyerror: user args plus yylloc. m4_define([b4_yyerror_args], [b4_yacc_pure_or_pus_if([b4_locations_if([&yylloc, ])])dnl m4_ifset([b4_parse_param], [b4_c_args(b4_parse_param), ])]) Does this make sense? Bob Rossi
