[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: |
Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:50:40 +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.
I seems that the stacj is merely using
/* A type that is properly aligned for any stack member. */
union yyalloc
{
short yyss;
YYSTYPE yyvs;
# if YYLSP_NEEDED
YYLTYPE yyls;
# endif
};
in order to figure out some alginments.
So one should then be able to replace it with MAX(sizeof(yyss),
sizeof(YYSTYPE), ...). (But I have not looked much into this dynamic stack,
and I am not enticed by doing so.)
Hans Aberg
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, (continued)
- 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, 2002/03/15
- Re: member with constructor not allowed in union, Akim Demaille, 2002/03/15
- 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, 2002/03/14