On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andre. > > What I find "funny" is that in Ubuntu, I dont even get a warning about > multiple declared symbols in windows I get the warnings but it works (with > /force:multiple), so I will just overwrite the linker options in the > makefile, that should do it. >
Are these utilities standalone? or do they have wider dependencies on other C++ from the project? If it is doing relatively simple file parsing and conversions, I wonder if it would be a huge effort to port to Java and JavaCC? Then we would not need to worry about the platform differences. -Rob > Thanks for your help. > Jan. > > Ps. The flex people just returned to me, and gave me another possibility, I > can use the -S option (manual says this is an option you will never use) > and pass a skeleton file, that will overwrite the standard skeleton and in > that I can change yytext. > > > On 12 November 2012 15:49, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12.11.2012 14:02, jan iversen wrote: >> >>> hi >>> >>> see below please >>> >>> On 12 November 2012 09:30, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 11.11.2012 22:06, jan iversen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to hear your opinion on the following problem: >>>>> >>>>> The l10n tools uses flex, which is quite nice, however I have found two >>>>> problems with flex: >>>>> >>>>> - the .l sources defines YYLMAX, but the generated .c source declares >>>>> yytext[YYLMAX] BEFORE the definition code it sucked in. I have verified >>>>> this with the flex sources, nothing to do about it. the flex generated c >>>>> sources start with flex things (including yytext[YYLMAX]) and then the >>>>> first part of the .l file is included. The manual states to use YYLMAX >>>>> to >>>>> change the yytext buffer size, but with the current flex sources it does >>>>> not work. >>>>> >>>>> That is a good way, especially since I can make my own targets (yy.c -> >>>> >>> .o) in the makefile. I will do that. >>> >>> But it does not solve the name issue (yytext), I will make a bug report on >>> flex, and mail one I know that was involved in flex. >>> >> >> Sorry, I did skipped the second problem when I read your mail the first >> time. >> >> I just made an experiment with l10ntools/source/srclex.l. When I add the >> line >> >> %option prefix="bla" >> >> before the first %% then yytext is replaced but yytext_ptr is not. Besides >> yytext is not really replaced but flex adds a >> >> #define yytext blatext >> >> so that yytext, while not used in the rest of src_yy.c, it will be a >> symbol in the object file. >> That will likely cause problems when linking two lexers into the same >> library/executable, which usually the reason for the renaming in the first >> place. >> Telling flex to produce C++ output might help (replace option -l with >> --c++) but that would require additional work (at least you have to change >> the compilation rules in makefile.mk to compile C++ instead of plain C). >> >> I am sorry to be of no help. >> -Andre >> >> >>> Jan >>> >>> >>> - the .l sources defines a '%option prefix="genXrm_"`which according to >>>>> the >>>>> manual should replace all yy in the generated code, however it does not >>>>> work for yytext and yytext_ptr, because the are instanciated before the >>>>> code is included. >>>>> >>>>> The leads to two problems: >>>>> - YYLMAX not being used, it a performance degradation on all platforms >>>>> (but >>>>> no real problem). >>>>> - yytext not being changed, is in Ubuntu (linux) not a problem, but in >>>>> windows I had to use a new swich (/forcemultiple), and I have no clue >>>>> about >>>>> mac. >>>>> >>>>> I see different solutions: >>>>> 1) I edit the generated .c file, and make a thick note, that if the .l >>>>> file >>>>> is translated, that has to be changed. >>>>> 2) I create a sed that takes the output of flex and does the trix, this >>>>> requires changing the details of the make files. >>>>> 3) I report the bug to the flex people with a patch, and we wait until a >>>>> new version is ready. >>>>> >>>>> I am for version 1), but I would like to hear opinions ? >>>>> >>>>> I found an answer via Google on another Apache mailing list (Apache >>>> Thrift): >>>> http://markmail.org/message/****hgphhaciu6nxwtk7#query:+page:****<http://markmail.org/message/**hgphhaciu6nxwtk7#query:+page:**> >>>> 1+mid:hgphhaciu6nxwtk7+state:****results<http://markmail.org/** >>>> message/hgphhaciu6nxwtk7#**query:+page:1+mid:** >>>> hgphhaciu6nxwtk7+state:results<http://markmail.org/message/hgphhaciu6nxwtk7#query:+page:1+mid:hgphhaciu6nxwtk7+state:results> >>>> **> >>>> >>>> >>>> In short: >>>> Add "CPPFLAGS='-DYYLMAX=whatever'" to the compiler invocation (not >>>> the >>>> call to flex that converts %lex.l to %_yy.c) >>>> However, if I look at l10ntools/source/makefile.mk, then I don't >>>> see >>>> an explicit compile rule for the %_yy.c files. You may have to add one. >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, and I think option 3) would be good to do also, without the waiting >>>> part. >>>> >>>> -Andre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
