Hi Bruno, > Le 2 mai 2020 à 10:45, Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> a écrit : > > Hi Akim, > >> I was suggesting that the macro _itself_ could just >> run bison on a file with the %require. > > This sounds better than the existing code that runs '--version'. > > What about users who have non-released versions installed? > I think the %require solution will be on par with the --version > solution, right?
Yep. Actually, it would be even more correct, as sometimes we force the betas (such as 3.5.90) to behave as the release (it does pass the %require "3.6" requirement). Which is what I would expect from the macro. > What about competing programs (like e.g. clang claims compatibility > with gcc)? Do competing programs for bison exist and need to be > worried about? I know of no program that would be even close to match bison on its input syntax. Except of course if you restrict yourself to the Yacc subset, but then specifying a version requirement would make no sense: the POSIX Yacc spec has not changed in years. > At configure time, both solutions are nearly on par: the time to > create a temporary file is negligible. And both will fail the same > way for a 'bison' program that references missing shared libraries. > > Patch welcome! Will do.