[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new pacification suggestion?
From: |
Uxio Prego |
Subject: |
Re: new pacification suggestion? |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:12:43 +0000 |
Well... for flex 2.6.4 goes away when replacing `%option noyywrap` for
a real `int _____wrap(void) { return 1; }`. So that’s an easy workaround
if those warnings where blockers. But I think the `%option` should prevent
such thing from popping up.
> On 25 Nov 2018, at 17:39, Uxio Prego <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> […]
>
> There, unlike in the Bison case, I can't see any comment noting that I might
> be misusing some known utility supposed to be used. So if the Bison case
> is relevant, I guess this one is more relevant.
>
>> On 25 Nov 2018, at 10:28, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> […]
>>
>> This appears to be the proper fix.
>>
>> commit cc050fd3218c4ee467dfe6c234867d84bd3e7119
>> Author: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu Nov 22 18:03:12 2018 +0100
>>
>> warning: avoid warnings about unreachable code
>>
>> [...]
- new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/15
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/15
- Fwd: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/16
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Paul Eggert, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/20
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Akim Demaille, 2018/11/25
- Re: new pacification suggestion?, Uxio Prego, 2018/11/25
- Re: new pacification suggestion?,
Uxio Prego <=