On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:30:38PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>(got to that point - attaching a diff which built with 2.6.0)
I'm not entirely convinced that this change captures what you're trying to
achieve with 2.6.0, as the second expression to sed makes LEX_SUBVERSION in
this case equal to 2, which is the major version, and the following
comparisons don't make sense in that case. My inclination would be to change
the test for 2006000 to -ge and be done with it:
elif test $cf_lex_version -ge 2006000
You should probably then also drop this:
-e 's/\.[0-9.]*//'`
as I'm not sure that it adds anything in the 2.5.x case. This is all mostly
cosmetic, as the changes to filters.h actually fixed the problem for 2.6.0.
To add to the hilarity, Debian unstable just upgraded to flex 2.6.1 which
elicits:
checking version of flex... 2.6.1
configure: WARNING: Sorry - your version of flex is too unstable: 2.6.1
which would be the same message you would see for 2.6.0 if you make the change
suggested above.
Either way, both 2.6.0 and 2.6.1 seem to have working loadable filters with
your patch.
>By the way, just to remind you of one of the reasons why "new" flex is
>not really a good tool. Here's a diffstat comparing my usual build to
>"new" flex. It adds a few compiler warnings:
>
> vmw-debian8b2-64-clang-run.log | 2568 +++++
> vmw-debian8b2-64-debbuild-run.log | 158
> vmw-debian8b2-64-debbuild-xvile.log | 154
> vmw-debian8b2-64-gcc-normal-run.log |10739 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> vmw-debian8b2-64-gcc-stricter-run.log |16287
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> vmw-debian8b2-64-mingw32-run.log | 740 +
> vmw-debian8b2-64-mingw64-run.log | 672 +
> vmw-debian8b2-64-run.log | 973 +-
> 8 files changed, 31063 insertions(+), 1228 deletions(-)
For now, while Debian is still packaging flex 2.5.4a as "flex-old", I'll
probably stick with that.
--bod
