[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bison bug.
From: |
James Harris |
Subject: |
Re: bison bug. |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:08:22 -0800 (PST) |
Yes this is a real case. I ran across this bug while developing
software. While I can not publish the code that exposed the bug I
generated a file which was similar enough to produce the same bug. I have
started to document the bug and will follow up the report once I have some
more information. As you can see from the grammar 255 rules aren't that
many, while the number of tokens may be large.. I dont belive its so large
to be useless. 255 rules looks a lot like a magic number, that needs to be
fixed.
On 22 Dec 2001, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> | This isn't the only bug I have run across in bison, but I belive they are
> | all symptoms of the same bug.
>
> I don't think so, 1.30 has a lot of problems.
>
> | I belive a some internal variable is to
> | small. As you can see the number 256 rules is rather telling. 255 is
> | acceptable, 256 produces the bug.
>
> Your test case doesn't make it clear exactly what is the problem? The
> total number of rules only, or is the number of symbols on the RHS
> relevant?
>
> Whatever the answer, I agree this is a bug. Nonetheless, it is not
> clear how to fix it: die with dignity diagnosing an overflow, or try
> to work with such grammars?
>
> In other words: is your test case realistic of some real condition
> uses, or just a torture test?
>
- bison bug., James Harris, 2001/12/21
- Re: bison bug., Akim Demaille, 2001/12/22
- Re: bison bug.,
James Harris <=
- Re: bison bug., James Harris, 2001/12/28
- Re: bison bug., akim, 2001/12/29
- Re: bison bug., James Harris, 2001/12/29
- Re: bison bug., Akim Demaille, 2001/12/30
- Re: bison bug., Hans Aberg, 2001/12/30
- Re: bison bug., Akim Demaille, 2001/12/30
- Re: bison bug., Hans Aberg, 2001/12/30