Re: Bison 3.0 updates

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bison 3.0 updates
Date: 2014-05-21 18:26:14
Message-ID: 2457.1400696774@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: buildfarm-members pgsql-hackers

Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/21/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I didn't do anything to suppress those warnings:
>>> gram.y:172.1-13: warning: deprecated directive, use %name-prefix
>>> [-Wdeprecated]
>>> %name-prefix="base_yy"
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> because it's hard to see how that's anything but a bison bug.

> The wording is a little odd as it seems we're supposed to replace
> %name-prefix with... %name-prefix, but the docs say we're supposed to
> use api.prefix now instead.

Oh, just a bad error message eh?

[ Reads docs ... ] AFAICT, they've deprecated this in favor of some
other syntax that they introduced in 2.6, which was released in July 2012.
That makes it a nonstarter for us. We're not going to break PG altogether
for most people in order to hide a warning message on the bleeding edge
version.

(For comparison, I've got bison 2.3 on my Mac and 2.4.1 on my RHEL6
machine, both of which are pretty up-to-date platforms as such things
go. Some of the buildfarm machines are still running 1.875.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse buildfarm-members by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-05-28 00:46:54 [Pgbuildfarm-members] PG buildfarm coverage needed for new uuid code
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2014-05-21 16:53:54 Re: Bison 3.0 updates

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-05-21 18:31:26 Re: pg_upgrade fails: Mismatch of relation OID in database 8.4 -> 9.3
Previous Message Jeff Ross 2014-05-21 16:56:59 Re: pg_upgrade fails: Mismatch of relation OID in database 8.4 -> 9.3