Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Tue, 07 Jan 1992 06:48:51 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback hjelm+@cs.cmu.edu (1992-01-03)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) (1992-01-04)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback sef@kithrup.COM (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback Jan.Rekers@cwi.nl (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback drw@lagrange.mit.edu (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback smk@dcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (1992-01-07)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback bill@twwells.com (1992-01-08)
Re: Lookahead vs. Scanner Feedback bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1992-01-08)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Keywords: yacc, parse, C
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
References: 92-01-012 92-01-022
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1992 06:48:51 GMT

In article 92-01-022 bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss) writes:
>One place where every yacc/lex based C compiler I know of is
>broken is on a typedef name redefined in an inner scope:


Microsoft C gets it right, strangely enough. pcc doesn't. Therefore, it's
not a problem with yacc, but with the compiler implementation. (Yes, msc is
built using yacc, and I've even used pure AT&T yacc to build it.)


--
Sean Eric Fagan
sef@kithrup.COM
--

Post a followup to this message

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