On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:55:17PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > 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?
I guess what I'm asking is, should yyerror see the locations in push mode? I'm thinking no, what do you think? Bob Rossi
