Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-14 02:42:53
Message-ID: 5730.1247539373@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Well, it looks like there's a reason GnuWin32 hasn't advanced beyond
> 2.5.4a - after that the flex developers proceeded to make flex use a
> filter chain methodology that requires the use of fork(). Making it run
> on Windows without the support of Msys or Cygwin would involve some
> significant surgery, I suspect.

Egad, this is a mess :-(. I noticed in the flex changelog that they'd
switched to using m4 instead of implementing all the text processing
themselves. I suppose this is a consequence of that.

But I'm not prepared to agree that M$ lameness should restrict us to
using only a 1990s version of flex. Didn't somebody mention upthread
that there is a Windows port of 2.5.33 available?

> Maybe for the time being we need to think about keeping scan.c in CVS.
> It's not like scan.l gets updated all that often.

We could if we had to, though it amounts to saying that Windows-based
developers don't get to touch the scanner.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-07-14 03:03:04 Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-07-14 02:37:02 Re: [GENERAL] pg_migrator not setting values of sequences?