On 2 September 2011 00:23, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be nice to get at least a little bit of the context before going in > any kind of arguing. > > For one the failing test happening after my commit was my mistake. It has > nothing to do with the bison versions but me having committed a wrong > expectf expression. However, the 1.x support was the reason why I made this > change. Instead of making it right I've updated my boxes with bison 2.x. > Lazy and better.1 > > That being cleared, anyone using 1.x will have noticed that the tests did > not pass. Fact is that it looks like I am the only tester using 2.x. Do you > have any example of supported systems still having only bison 1.x support? > > Also 1.x is 13 years old, I would very surprised to see anyone still using > such an old system with 5.3. > > Now, as stated earlier, my testing hosts do not have 1.x anymore and I won't > care about it anymore either. So basically nobody here takes care if it > anymore but let claim we do :) > > On Sep 2, 2011 12:04 AM, "Ferenc Kovacs" <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: >
The default build tools for building PHP on Windows uses Bison 1.27. http://windows.php.net/downloads/php-sdk/php-sdk-binary-tools-20110512.zip contains [2011-09-02 11:36:29] [D:\php-sdk-binary-tools-20110512\bin] [] >bison.exe --version GNU Bison version 1.27 -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend : PHPDoc @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY : bit.ly/lFnVea -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
