This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Configuration/Makefile cleanups
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: Configuration/Makefile cleanups
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:15:35 -0800
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200011082225.RAA02415@caip.rutgers.edu> <15181.973722983@upchuck>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:36:23PM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:
>
> In message <200011082225.RAA02415@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
> > > From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@stanford.edu>
> > >
> > > * configure.in: Use gcc_AC_PROG_YACC. Look for flex in the
> > > unified tree, then use AC_PROG_LEX.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure we should use anything besides bison/flex.
> Agreed. In fact, that's a decision we made a while ago.
>
> The way this should work is we look for bison/flex to see if there's copies
> in our unified build tree, if that fails, then use any bison/flex we find.
> If that fails, then we error and fail.
See my other message - I don't agree with that decision.
I'm not going to make a huge fuss over this, though. I can easily
change the patch to do as you suggest. But I would like to hear from
the *BSD people who currently hack up the makefile so byacc is used,
first.
zw