This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cp/parse.y:2120: invalid value: $3
- From: Paul Eggert <eggert at twinsun dot com>
- To: akim at epita dot fr
- Cc: bug-gcc at gnu dot org, bug-bison at gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: cp/parse.y:2120: invalid value: $3
- References: <mv4it6fls5j.fsf@nostromo.lrde.epita.fr> <mv4heluitf3.fsf@nostromo.lrde.epita.fr>
> From: Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr>
> Date: 29 Apr 2002 14:24:48 +0200
>
> As far as Bison is concerned, I'd like the GCC team to tell me what
> they would prefer:
>
> 1. I release this Bison as is, fixed, and it will die on current G++.
>
> 2. I introduce a temporary hack to accept this grammar, and still
> produce the old broken code.
>
> 3. I introduce a temporary hack to accept this grammar, and produce
> the *intended* code. I will put a warning though.
When I had more free time I used to help maintain the GNU C parser, so
I have some feeling for the pros and cons here. I far prefer having a
Bison that checks my work to one that silently does the wrong thing,
or even to one that silently guesses right about my mistakes.
>From my point of view (1) is best. The G++ maintainers can fix
cp/parse.y in due course. If you like, you can include a brief note
about the problem in the Bison NEWS file.
(2) produces broken code, so it's the worst choice.
(3) is a horrible hack, but it's better than (2).