| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Korry Douglas <korry(dot)douglas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michelle Caisse <Michelle(dot)Caisse(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: code coverage patch |
| Date: | 2008-08-28 15:09:51 |
| Message-ID: | 10900.1219936191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We're pretty much assuming bison anyway, no? It's been years since
>> I heard of anyone successfully building the backend grammar with plain
>> yacc.
> In my recollection, you were the last holdout on that with the
> occasional HP-UX yacc test. But I seem to recall that that combination
> actually no longer worked the last time.
I don't think I've tried that in this century ;-). Between the sheer
size of the grammar and the fact that we're already depending on the
behavior of several arcane %-options, I really doubt any tool besides
bison will work. Besides, the whole point of shipping the built files
in tarballs is to ensure no one has to use any other tool.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-28 15:13:33 | Re: September Commit Fest coming soon! |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-08-28 15:03:08 | Re: code coverage patch |