Re: Why do some versions of bison require {} here?

Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de>
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:15:25 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Why do some versions of bison require {} here? pkk@spth.de (Philipp Klaus Krause) (2019-01-01)
Re: Why do some versions of bison require {} here? 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-01-02)
Re: Why do some versions of bison require {} here? pkk@spth.de (Philipp Klaus Krause) (2019-01-03)
Re: Why do some versions of bison require {} here? 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-01-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:15:25 +0100
Organization: solani.org
References: 19-01-001
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="16991"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: yacc
Posted-Date: 03 Jan 2019 20:15:04 EST
Content-Language: en-US

Am 01.01.19 um 10:55 schrieb Philipp Klaus Krause:
> [Adding the empty action forces bison to reduce the rule rather than just
> shifting and saving state for later. I couldn't guess why that would matter
> in this case. Are there precedence rules? With your change does the grammar compile
> cleanly or does it have conflicts? -John]
>


Well, for me (but I don't see the problem without the {} on my system -
GNU bison 3.2.2 on Debian GNU/Linux), both with and without {}, when using
LANG=C bison -W -y -d SDCC.y
I get 7 warning about "empty rule without %empty", but no other
warnings. The people reporting issues seem to be using GNU bison on
Microsoft Windows.


Philipp


Post a followup to this message

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