Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-12-20 21:30: > Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. > > On 12/20/2011 09:15 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >> How about this for maint? Caution, I'm pretty much ignorant of lex details... >> > Surely no more than I am, so I'll follow your lead. I just have a couple of > nits below.
Heh, I wouldn't bet on it. This was a first for me... :-) >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> 2011-12-20 Peter Rosin <[email protected]> >> >> tests: fix spurious failure on systems lacking unistd.h >> * tests/silent-lex-generic.test (foo.l): Don't require unistd.h >> to be present. >> > Here, I'd report the bug number and the name of the affected system as well; > something > like this: > > tests: fix spurious failure on systems lacking unistd.h > This is for automake bug#10324. > * tests/silent-lex-generic.test (foo.l): Add a dummy #define of > YY_NO_UNISTD_H, > so that the generated foo.c file won't require unistd.h to be present > (it is > not when compiling with, e.g., MSVC 9). > > ACK with this addressed, if you can confirm your change fixes the spurious > failure > (but I bet you've already checked that ;-) Yes, it fixes the problem and one system which has unistd.h also still passes. >> diff --git a/tests/silent-lex-generic.test b/tests/silent-lex-generic.test >> index 2b2183e..a1c19ea 100755 >> --- a/tests/silent-lex-generic.test >> +++ b/tests/silent-lex-generic.test >> @@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ LDADD = $(LEXLIB) >> EOF >> >> cat > foo.l <<'EOF' >> +%{ >> +/* avoid non-ANSI #include of unistd.h */ >> +#define YY_NO_UNISTD_H >> > Micro-nit: maybe define this to '1' for clarity & safeness? (This is not a > requirement for an ACK though, just a matter of preference). Done. >> +%} >> %% >> "END" return EOF; >> . So, all nits fixed and pushed. Cheers, Peter
