Re: [HACKERS] flex

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] flex
Date: 2000-01-16 01:38:33
Message-ID: 17310.947986713@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Maybe this has been discussed before my time, but why exactly is it that
>> we don't distribute lex'ed files, as with yacc'ed files?

> Not sure. Are they more platform-dependent or lexer-dependent? Doesn't
> the lexer call a lexer-specific library? Not sure.

flex has a lexer-specific library (libfl.a), but as far as I can tell
our scanners don't call it. In fact our build process has no provision
for adding -lfl to the link, which I used to think was an oversight, but
now it's starting to seem like a good idea. We could ship scan.c et al
in the same way we handle the yacc/bison output files, and it should
work everywhere.

If we were going to do this, I'd vote for making sure that *all* the
yacc files are pregenerated (currently, we only take care of the larger
ones), and then most people wouldn't need either flex or bison to build.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-01-16 02:03:50 I think we need an explicit parsetree node for CAST
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-16 01:31:56 Re: [HACKERS] Problem with foreign keys and inheritance