This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Fwd: Suggestion for removing flex/bison as a dependancy

From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
To: Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:38:07 +1100
Subject: Re: Fwd: Suggestion for removing flex/bison as a dependancy
References: <998d0e4a0711261043m1111800an27068a846b0033d7@mail.gmail.com> <d841b3f30711261054m5e9d845yb5222d1620da275f@mail.gmail.com> <d841b3f30711261055i3e61ff68x7d4537ea37ed6ed6@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 00:25 +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> I'm not saying we don't use flex/bison. I am only saying we can remove
> that as a build dependancy; Many people have to use specific versions
> of lex (flex) and yacc (bison) if they wish to compile gcc.

I agree with you: end users should not have to have these tools
installed in order to build GCC.  However, we expect that most end users
are building GCC *releases*, where we provide the generated files in the
release tarball.

If you check GCC out of the Subversion repository, you are now classed
as a developer and you are expected to have those tools installed.  I
don't think that is an unreasonable assumption.

Ben

References:
- Re: Suggestion for removing flex/bison as a dependancy
  - From: J.C. Pizarro
- Fwd: Suggestion for removing flex/bison as a dependancy
  - From: Karthik Kumar

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]