Re: flex for windows

Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org>
Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:38:28 -0800

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: flex for windows timothyprince@sbcglobal.net (tim prince) (2007-12-14)
Re: flex for windows DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows dickey@saltmine.radix.net (Thomas Dickey) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows dickey@saltmine.radix.net (Thomas Dickey) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows agdjh@gasjgdjagjdagdgaj.com (Gary R. Van Sickle) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows tprince@computer.org (Tim Prince) (2008-01-06)
Re: flex for windows DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-01-07)
Re: flex for windows cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-01-07)
Re: flex for windows rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (2008-01-09)
Re: flex for windows monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2008-01-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.c
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:38:28 -0800
Organization: AT&T http://yahoo.sbc.com
References: 07-12-040 07-12-043 07-12-047 07-12-053 07-12-056 08-01-013
Keywords: lex, Windows
Posted-Date: 06 Jan 2008 22:47:49 EST

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Cygwin configures and builds current flex "out of the box," and I get
>> only 1 adverse indication in the testsuite.
>
> Unfortunately that's not entirely true. If you're using Cygwin's
> "text mode mounts", current flex will compile fine, but the scanners
> it generates are uncompilable, due to our old friend "The Inability Of
> 21st Century Computer Science To Solve The Clearly Intractable And
> Apparently NP-Hard "\r\n" Vs. "\n" EOL Problem". For reasons I've
> been unable to determine or correct, no matter what you do the
> generated source has extra EOLs and "Pseudo-EOLs" (things like
> "\r\r\n").


>> Your recommendation to use linux amounts to using a posix
>> environment, more so than cygwin. So, I'm not convinced by any of
>> these suggestions that avoiding posix emulations makes it easier.


> True enough, but step 1 is that it has to generate usable output.


I'm not enough of a masochist to attempt Windows text mode. I haven't
heard of anyone but you telling us that anything but NotePad
compatible text in Windows is "cheating." Linux doesn't support this
kind of text mode; why should we make it impossibly difficult on
Windows?


Post a followup to this message

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