Re: duplicated user destructor for lookahead

[Paul Eggert]

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:

> In any case, I believe the following patch is cleaner than my last one.
> Its approach is simply to synchronize the shift for all stacks.  Embedded
> comments should explain the rest.

That looks good to me.

> that
> `If stack is well-formed' comment has me scared to do this.  Can anyone
> explain this comment?

It's meant to cover the case where the stack is only partially allocated
(it takes more than one malloc call to create it, and perhaps a later
malloc failed).  But this can happen only during initialization; the
parser proper isn't invoked if the stack never got built right.