Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question

Thomas Dickey <>
19 Dec 2005 00:12:13 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Cygwin 'byacc' question (Andrey Tarasevich) (2005-11-02)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question (Keith Thompson) (2005-11-04)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question (Bill Cox) (2005-11-08)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question (toby) (2005-11-12)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question (Andrey Tarasevich) (2005-11-12)
Re: Cygwin 'byacc' question (Thomas Dickey) (2005-12-19)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Thomas Dickey <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Dec 2005 00:12:13 -0500
Organization: RadixNet Internet Services
References: 05-11-030
Keywords: yacc
Posted-Date: 19 Dec 2005 00:12:13 EST

Andrey Tarasevich <> wrote:
> Hello

> I'm using Berkley Yacc (byacc) generator from Cygwin package in my
> project and now I'm in the process of switching to the newer version
> of Cygwin. While doing this I ran into the following problem. The old
> version of byacc (identifies itself as 'Berkley Yacc (+28-B19)' and
> appears to be pretty ancient) declared file-scope data in the

"+28-B19" sounds like a Cygwin version.

Cygwin has a CVS for this program, which covers part of the changes
they made. (I don't recall the url - just that I came across it a few
years ago, and decided that most of the changes I didn't want).

> following manner (using 'yycheck' as an example):

> static YYCONST short yycheck[] = { <whatever> };

> The new version (identifies itself as 'Berkley Yacc 1.9') taking the
> same input generates a .c file, which declares the same data as
> follows:

> const short yycheck[] = { <whatever> };

And the original version is written in K&R C and doesn't use const.
(It didn't use "static" either - which seems the be the impetus for this

Thomas E. Dickey

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.