[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: member with constructor not allowed in union |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:17:37 +0100 |
At 13:55 +0100 2002/03/15, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
>[X] I would prefer the regular bison.simple to work with C++, so we
> don't have to change all the packages.
>
>What was wrong with the old skeleton? From what Hans said, it would
>memcpy as soon as the stack was full, causing not-so-nice pyrotechnical
>effects. Well, it was at least working as long as the stack was low.
Nope: It was working for C++ compilers that did not conform to detect the
"union" error. If you zip out the dynamical part out altogether (i.e., so
it's never compiled under C++), and put in a stack overflow error instead,
then it will compile I figure.
>And, out of curiosity: what makes the stack double-ended?
If you by "double-ended" mean this static-dynamic stack hybrid, then I
think it is there for historical reasons: In the beginning, there was only
the static stack; then someone patched it, writing the dynamic one.
Properly, bison.simple should use either a pure static (with overflow
error) or a pure dynamic one, because in the hybrid, the original static
stack memory is never released, taking up unnecessary space. Then, under
C++, one should be able to use the purely static stack version.
Given these problems, it is better to forget about C++ and bison.simple,
and write new C++ versions.
On 14 Mar 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> You are not using the C++ output! Run bison -S bison.c++.
I think "C++.bison" is a better name.
Also, if it's not already there, it should be a part of the standard Bison
distributions, not only the CVS.
Hans Aberg
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Paul Eggert, 2002/03/18
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/19
- Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Re: Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Richard B. Kreckel, 2002/03/20
- Re: Bison 1.34a is released (Was: member with constructor not allowed in union), Akim Demaille, 2002/03/20
- Debian changes for Bison, Paul Eggert, 2002/03/20
- Re: Debian changes for Bison, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/21
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union,
Hans Aberg <=
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/20
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Hans Aberg, 2002/03/14