Re: tetex-20011202 and bison-1.30g don't get along

2001-12-22 Thread Akim Demaille 

 Mike == Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Mike 1.30h fails with same error.

Thanks for the report.  I believe the bug is (actually, are, there
were two) fixed.  Could you give a try to

http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~akim/download/bison-1.30i.tar.gz
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~akim/download/bison-1.30i.tar.bz2

?

TIA!

Re: tetex-20011202 and bison-1.30g don't get along

2001-12-19 Thread Akim Demaille 

 Mike == Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Mike Whoops.  Deleted Akim's reply, so replying to myself to at least
Mike keep it in the same thread.

Mike On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:08:14PM -0800, Mike Castle wrote:
 No obvious problems with bison-1.30e.  This is the first
 compilation error I've encountered with bison-1.30g.

Mike 1.30h fails with same error.

Mike I generated a diff of the 1.30[eh] output, but even gzipped,
Mike it's 12k.  More than I feel comfortable sending via email.  I'll
Mike put it up on the web in a bit.  Hopefully I'll remember to write
Mike the URL before I send this email.  (If the list owners want it
Mike archived, they may to send it out anyway.)

Thanks, there is indeed a genuine problem somewhere.  The diffs are
big, but most of the diffs are irrelevant.  What is not is:

| @@ -471,7 +473,7 @@
|94, 0,   113, 0,   158, 0,   152,   154,94,94,
| 0,   245,   246,   241,   244,   243, 0, 0,   237,   300,
| 0,   271, 0,   291,   200, 0,   194,   198,   248,   260,
| - 139,   178,   180, 0, 0,   262,   125,94, 0,   124,
| + 139,   178,   180, 0, 0, 0,   125,94, 0,   124,
|   112,   115,   121,   122, 0,   119,   154,   156,   151,   157,
| 0,   173,   165,   169,   176, 0, 0,   276,   217,   219,
|   223,   225,   227,   229,   209,   211,   233,   213,   235,   215,

in the parser, and

| @@ -1708,7 +1713,6 @@
|  CONST_DEC_PART  -  const_tok CONST_DEC_LIST .   (rule 33)
|  CONST_DEC_LIST  -  CONST_DEC_LIST . CONST_DEC   (rule 35)
|  
| -undef_id_tok   reduce using rule 36 (@7)
|  $default   reduce using rule 33 (CONST_DEC_PART)
|  CONST_DEC  go to state 68
|  @7 go to state 57
| @@ -1852,7 +1856,6 @@
|  TYPE_DEC_PART  -  type_tok TYPE_DEF_LIST .   (rule 82)
|  TYPE_DEF_LIST  -  TYPE_DEF_LIST . TYPE_DEF   (rule 84)
|  
| -undef_id_tok   reduce using rule 85 (@26)
|  $default   reduce using rule 82 (TYPE_DEC_PART)
|  TYPE_DEF   go to state 78
|  @26go to state 72
| @@ -1944,9 +1947,6 @@
|  VAR_DEC_PART  -  var_tok VAR_DEC_LIST .   (rule 126)
|  VAR_DEC_LIST  -  VAR_DEC_LIST . VAR_DEC   (rule 128)
|  
| -undef_id_tok   reduce using rule 129 (@33)
| -var_id_tok reduce using rule 129 (@33)
| -field_id_tok   reduce using rule 129 (@33)
|  $default   reduce using rule 126 (VAR_DEC_PART)
|  VAR_DECgo to state 86
|  @33go to state 82
| @@ -3137,8 +3137,6 @@
|  VARIABLE  -  var_id_tok . @51 VAR_DESIG_LIST   (rule 194)
|  VARIABLE  -  var_id_tok .   (rule 195)
|  
| -'['reduce using rule 193 (@51)
| -'.'reduce using rule 193 (@51)
|  $default   reduce using rule 195 (VARIABLE)
|  @51go to state 252

etc. in the output.

I'll track this down, many thanks!

Re: tetex-20011202 and bison-1.30g don't get along

2001-12-18 Thread Akim Demaille 

 Mike == Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Mike I'm not sure where there error occurs, so I'm sending to both
Mike lists.  I'm not sure on subscription policies, so may need to
Mike replies as necessary.

Mike Joys of building every piece of cutting edge material I can lay
Mike my hands on.  :-

:)

Mike Oh, I guess I should first ask, can anyone else reproduce this,
Mike or specific to my system?

No idea...

Could you try to diff the output of the two Bisons on the suspicious y
file?  Thanks!  Also, if there are useless rules in the grammar, then
I know 1.30g failed.  In this case, if there are indeed useless rules
in this grammar, please give a try to the forthcoming 1.30h.

Re: tetex-20011202 and bison-1.30g don't get along

2001-12-18 Thread Mike Castle 


Whoops.  Deleted Akim's reply, so replying to myself to at least keep it in
the same thread.

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:08:14PM -0800, Mike Castle wrote:
 No obvious problems with bison-1.30e.  This is the first compilation error
 I've encountered with bison-1.30g.

1.30h fails with same error.

I generated a diff of the 1.30[eh] output, but even gzipped, it's 12k.
More than I feel comfortable sending via email.  I'll put it up on the web
in a bit.  Hopefully I'll remember to write the URL before I send this
email.  (If the list owners want it archived, they may to send it out
anyway.)

Out of curiosity, I tried byacc, and it worked fine.  :-

http://dalgoda.home.netcom.com/diff.gz

The teTeX source I'm trying to compile is at:

ftp://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/unix/teTeX-beta/teTeX-src-beta-20011202.tar.gz

Though it's a bit of a heavy-weight package to install.

Maybe we can get Thomas to generate a small example of the grammar and
input?

mrc
-- 
 Mike Castle  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc